Right before they took a break, the prosecution in Donald Trumps Hush Money Case reminded the jury Michael Cohen is not the one on trial here. Despite a crossexamination that got heated, just as he was finishing, and yet an admission by trumps former fixer on the stand did leave the d. A. s office with some clean up to do. Im Chris Jansing alongside my colleagues, Andrea Mitchell and katy tur. Sorry, Michael Cohen acknowledged under oath that he stole 60,000 from the trump organization, that he did it out of anger that mr. Trump cut his bonus. The prosecution is trying to use their second shot at questioning Michael Cohen to redirect the focus back to the former president. Were going to bring you live updates as we read them when Michael Cohen returns to the stand in just a few minutes after the lunch break. Nbcs Yasmin Vossoughian is live at the courthouse. Catherine christian is still with us. Also with us, andrew weissmann, former lead prosecutor in Robert Muellers special counsels office. Good to have all of you here. So since you just joined us, where would you pick up . Lets just take the 60,000 that Michael Cohen said he stole. You know, this is the kind of thing that catherine and i when we were prosecutors and put on witnesses who had done lots of bad things, the defense wants to, and has an obligation to bring out a lot of the bad acts of what they have done before. But very often those bad acts, evidence of it is the witness, in fact, saying it himself or herself. Here, Michael Cohen is the one who provided the evidence of it, and the amount of evidence is one single witness, Michael Cohen, and one of the things you will probably hear is what we used to argue to the jury, which is when Michael Cohen says something bad about himself, that should be believed. Take it to the bank. And when he says he stole money, which, by the way, the only way people know about it, the state knows about it, the defense knows about it, is because he admits it. That you should take to the bank. As soon as he says something thats corroborated, that you cant believe. Thats the back and forth. I know catherine and i are thinking about, how is this going to be used in summation. You have been talking about how you think the has a really strong case. How did you think the defense did on their crossexamination . You know, this is one where i hold them to sort of a lower standard because, you know, a lot of times the Defense Lawyer will try lots and lots of different things, and a lot of it may not work. But they dont need a lot of it to work. Its okay if just some of it works. And they, i think, scored a valid point respect to the October 24th Call to raise. If the only issue in the case was what happened on october 24th, i think they raised doubt about that. The problem is and theyll try and say thats what the case is about. In general, all of the things we knew about how sort of difficult Michael Cohen would be as a witness we knew even before he took the stand and certainly was confirmed by his direct examination, and further confirmed on his crossexamination, which is, if all you had was Michael Cohens testimony, i dont think the state would have brought the case, and this would not be something where you say its proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is what youre saying, this could be a one score, to put it in your words, one score with one juror, thats what theyre hoping for. Absolutely. What theyre hoping for is that all 12 actually agree. Of course. Yeah, you know, a hung jury is something the defense always is like that second best, and you know, all they need is one juror. Remember, it takes 12 to acquit. It takes 12 to convict, and if theres anything less than the 12 to convict, you have a hung jury. When we come back from lunch, well find out whether and to what degree that cspan clip or still photo will be admitted in. Will that be enough to cast doubt on what the defense was trying to do and corroborate the possibility that Michael Cohen is telling the truth, that he did call and reach Keith Schiller coming off the stage with donald trump. There was time for both issues to have been raised, the 14yearold, as well as letting trump know we have taken care of stormy. I think if youre an adult and dispassionate, theres no question that Michael Cohen, and probably the d. A. s office made a mistake in thinking that only one thing happened on that October 24th Call, and during crossexamination, he was saying, well, i still think thats the call and it must be that two things happened, and frankly, 96 seconds is time to do that. I was talking about if i were the prosecutor, i would count out 96 seconds to the jury to show how long that is. The Tape Recording Michael Cohen made of donald trump is 90 seconds long, theres a lot of ways to argue it. On the other hand, i think the prosecution with this exhibit, which is going to come in in some form. If it doesnt come in right now, they will be allowed To Authenticate it. The judge says its clearly relevant. Its a question of the rules of evidence about authentication. Its not one for one, but it helps, it supports the idea that the two of them were there and the call could have been happened with both of them. Lawrence mentioned a moment ago that the trump team didnt go anywhere near the weisselberg notes on the trump stationary, exhibits 35 and 36. We talked about them a ton here. Why did they not try to poke holes into that stuff . I mean, that seems like pretty strong evidence. Wouldnt you want to sow some confusion in the jurys mind there . You want to. Just to be clear, mary and i spent an entire episode of our podcast on exhibits 35 and 36. When we saw that, we latched on it, as former trial lawyers, oh, my god, that is devastating. And in so many ways, its corroborative its got the 130, its got the times two. All of the things that todd blanche did today would be fine arguments if you didnt have those notes. The answer to your direct question or to directly answer your question is sometimes theres not a lot you can say and you try and nibble around the edges, but, you know, i dont know what he can do about it. Its a guy that wrote down the payments to Michael Cohen, a guy currently in prison for continue to go lie for donald trump, continuing to hold his water. I mean, i feel like thats strong circumstantial evidence just on who Allen Weisselberg is. The jury doesnt know hes in prison, doesnt know why. Thats something we know. If they were paying attention to the news before this, they would know. That is true, although its a low information jurors. Heres one of the reasons, if the Defense Lawyer doesnt have a lot to say, one of the things they want, as few times as possible, do they want exhibit 35 and 36 shown to the jury. We have to go back to the courthouse because we have a mini bit of Breaking News with Yasmin Vossoughian. To the question we havent talked about in the last hour, which is will he or wont he, donald trump, we got some, i dont know, info, opinion, what did we get on it . Reporter a little bit more than a mini bit of Breaking News, chris, a little bit more than that. Alina habba talking to fox news, when asked the question or what is going into the decision on whether trump is going to testify. Her answer was well, hes got to listen to his attorneys. Its not as much as what he wants to do. We know he wants to testify. He is willing, he is able. He has nothing to hide. It would be quick in terms of the questions asked because he had no part in this. 90 seconds of testimony in the e. Jean carroll defamation case, four hours of deposition offered up in the trump civil fraud trial. The thinking going into whether or not the former president is going to testify, we have said over and over again, its ultimately up to donald trump, in fact, to testify, and i do believe that. Of course hes going to take the counsel of his attorneys alina habba is telling us here. Bradley smith, former fec commissioner to possibly testify. Now it seems iffy. It seems as if both the prosecution and the defense are going to confer on the limitations to his testimony and or offer up guidance to the judge as to what should be included in jury instructions, and if, in fact, they both agree on the jury instructions, they wont need Bradley Smith to testify. The line of questioning, quick reminder here, bob costello, an attorney who in 2018, Michael Cohen thought about retaining, was encouraged by donald trump to retain. Bob costello, Rudy Giuliani as well. A friend of Rudy Giuliani as well, and just during direct testimony, Michael Cohen was asked, did you tell the truth to bob costello, he said no, im paraphrasing here because he did not question him at the time. Can i talk about brad smith, the other Expert Witness regarding the fec. A former commissioner. I have interviewed him for a show that Jacob Soboroff and i did called the swamp, talking about campaign finance, and dark money. He is an emphatic arguer that citizens are people. That dark money does not negatively affect campaigns. He is very good with words. Very good at pushing his points. He can talk you in circles in order to get his point out. The judge said hes not going to let him testify to the law, that is for the law in his charge to the jury. It if he did allow him, hes a convincing person, very good with pushing what he believes to be correct. So i understand high they would want him as a witness. Hes very argumentative and can be effective. I couldnt understand. We talked about what the defense did not do. Why didnt the prosecution try to in direct rebut something catherine was talking about earlier, yes, i stole and the Brown Paper Bag of cash. Why did they let that come out in cross . It probably would have been a good idea to pull the teeth on it and do i think we have talked about this, like, you know, there are different schools of thought. Im a big believer in on your direct examination, like basically just letting it all hang out there in detail. So it kind of leaves the defense with not a lot to do in terms of just bad acts. But, you know, its one of those things. I think it all is really going to come down to how you argue it. One good thing about Michael Cohen on all of that stuff. Hes just admitting it. Its not like they have to drag it out, and he has actually said it. The reason the defense knows is because its in reports that were written. One comment about Just Alina Habba and donald trump testifying is that i strongly suspect that because its the defendants decision, not counsels decision to testify or not testify, most judges and i suspect it will be true of judge merchan, hes an extraordinary judge. He is going to in court say mr. Trump, is this your decision. So i dont think hell be able to say, oh, you know what, my counsel made the decision, and hide behind that. He can say i considered the advice of counsel. He will have to say in court how often does that happen . Any good judge, you know what, they dont want an appeal issue where later a defendant says i didnt understand i had the weight. They dont want a Speech Rallying outside the courthouse not the jury but the judge will ask it outside of the presence of the jury. And he could say exactly that. What do we make of this lineup of possible people that they could call to the stand, smith, costello, a paralegal, put in a phone chart which is expected to be very quick. Theyre giving some thought to it. Whats your best estimation. I dont see The Point Of Calling mr. Smith if he cant really testify to anything. What he talked about with you, hes not going to be allowed. That would be pointless. Costello is a problem for them and a gift to the prosecution. It opens the door to him allegedly trying to prevent Michael Cohen from flipping, his relationship with julianne. That is a pandoras box. He cant be on direct. Hes going to be cross examined by the prosecution. Why is Keith Schiller not being called . Thats on the prosecution. Why arent they calling him . Do you think the defense the prosecution would get to crossexamination him. The defense is best not calling any witnesses. They dont have to prove a thing. And the prosecution cannot comment at all in their summation about why didnt they call this person and that person. The judge is back. Theyre going to have the Charging Conference where they decide how to instruct the jury tomorrow afternoon. That is still subject to change. He mentions hes not crazy about going down for a week, but thats just the calendar, and unfortunately thats the way the calendar is working for this trial. The discussion regarding admitting the cspan videos, i saw the peoples submission. I had the opportunity to read through the testimony to see what kind of foundation can be laid. He points to page 1,664. What is your position at cspan. This is the testimony that the cspan Executive Director gave them. They say Executive Director of the cspan archives, did you travel to testify. He says, yes, i did. What is cspan is the question. What do you do with the october 2016 archives. Does the Camera Operator Record the event in realtime . Yes, producer watches video from the beginning to the end, is video camera tested ahead of the event . Yes. Signal test . Yes. Audio test . Yes. When video is being transmitted, does cspan record then save the video. The testimony is yes. Describes Everything Telecast on cspan. Why is he bringing up this specific testimony . To put in evidence you have to lay a foundation and show its a Business Record kept in the ordinary course of business, and there already had been a cspan witness. The judge is going over what that person said. For the audience, The Big Picture is although defendants and their counsel do not have to stipulate to anything, 99. 9 of the time, it is, they stipulate on both sides. You do not have to do this. This is an unusual trial where the defense has not stipulated to anything. What does that mean . Usually you can just say here are Phone Records and you dont have to call the Telephone Company and say yes, i work for the Telephone Company, here are the records of the Telephone Company kept in the ordinary course of business. The other side says i agree theyre telePhone Records. I can argue about what they mean that courtesy extends both ways. This is the unusual trial where the defense has not stipulated to anything. Having worked with susan necheles, as a prosecutor. In any normal case, of course. A defense that has continually complained and the defendant has complained hes off the Campaign Trail and they have had any number of witnesses to do exactly what this witness would do, which is to prolong the trial for things that under most circumstances would have been just, yes, we agree. Theres no question. Do you think its because of the client not wanting them to agree can i correct, andrew, thats federal court. State court, at least in manhattan, we were trained as prosecutor, you better know how To Authenticate documents and videos and that. Theres just no stipulation, why if youre the defense. Really in that courthouse, no. I dont see anything wrong with it. As a prosecutor, of course theyre not going to stipulate. Youre trained as a prosecutor in manhattan, the d. A. s office. You can expect the defense is not going to consent. Its a very different world. Were going to get an answer on whether hes going to allow this video to be admitted. Hes asking hes still reading from the testimony from the cspan. While were waiting for that, can i ask a quick question, and you can certainly weigh in. There was thought this morning as the journalists were waiting in line for hours and having the conversation about what judge merchan would decide in terps of a schedule. They could do closings on thursday, begin deliberation. He would have let them do that. They would be off friday, saturday, sunday, and monday. Friday is a holiday too. So four full days. Maybe started a little bit of deliberation, and had to wait four days to come back. Was there any way any judge would think judge merchan thought about it over the weekend, and i believe a juror said he cant come on thursday in the afternoon. Thats right. It really would not be a good thing. They have a week off. Merchan says hes not going to allow the videos. He says i can appreciate the case law that the photo is relevant, testimony is foundation, and hes highly qualified in exhibits he was going to produce to suggest that a paralegal cannot testify To Authenticate the videos, and i dont think we can say that, so the objection is sustained, and those videos cannot come in. Steinglass says we accept your ruling but we would want to bring the cspan witness back so were making arrangements to do that. Thats going to extend this case because hes got to travel. Why is he saying no to this . Catherine, can you translate that. Now after careful consideration, i think its too prejudicial to prove that Michael Cohen was right when he said he had that conversation. Why isnt that good evidence . Because hearsay is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. I quite frankly think this was proper, you know, the foundation was properly made. Its unclear why the judge is saying no. It sound like what hes saying, until we see the full transcript, that its a technical evidentiary issue, he doesnt think the testimony laid a foundation for this exhibit. He wasnt asked about this exhibit. He was asked about other exhibits. To the point of technically, he would have to come back and say, i looked at this exhibit. And everything i said about how exhibits are kept, and how we keep things, this applies. Theres a dispute from the defense that on that conversation, you didnt talk to donald trump. You talked to Keith Schiller about the 14yearold who was allegedly harassing you. And providing that phone number to schiller. This would show that schiller and trump were together, rather than schiller had to reach out to trump and make the connection. This is Keith Schiller and donald trump walking off a rally stage in 7 50, walking off the stage five minutes before, and then Michael Cohen calls him, and this is what the prosecution is going to want to argue that they were together, and i guess the inference and argument they will make is do you really believe Keith Schiller wanted to talk about a 14yearold boy. That was the highest and most pressing thought on his mind. Or that they did talk about both. The thing, i think, from the audiences perspective. Obviously from the trial, its really important for the prosecution to get this so they can show they in fact were together. I think from the audiences point of view, the question i would have as a nonlawyer, and not thinking about the trial, why is donald trump so adamant about trying to keep this away from the jury when we have him in a video with Keith Schiller at a time they were separate. Why does the prosecution want to bring the witness back. If they cant put this video into evidence. To provide the evidentiary foundation. You need someone to say thats a cspan video. This is all about sort of what is the evidentiary basis of essentially this document, the fact that the witness has previously said about other cspan documents, their Business Records, doesnt mean theres enough for this one. Its a really technical issue. Its getting interesting. As he should be upset about this. Todd blanche says we object to the witness coming back, to which judge merchan says, people, why wasnt this taken care of sooner. Stein glass, we learned about this over the weekend and we have been moving on it. I dont want to characterize your honors ruling but we had good faith belief that this was going to come in. Were trying to get the witness here as quickly as possible, maybe tomorrow morning. And were waiting for what merchan and blanche have to say. Merchan asks, what is the prejudice, and blanche says the prejudice is the people want to get the witness here to testify about something when theyre you and i have talked about this, people think we cant read. Were waiting for the words to show on our screen. Testify about something that was testified about last month. So just so people understand, when something comes up on direct examination, the defense is entitled to say, okay, i first learned of it. I was surprised and thus we need time or we want to do something. It was unanticipated. Thousand the shoe is on the other foot. The prosecution is saying, look, they brought this up for the first time on crossexamination, and we want to respond. So this is kind of normal. I would be really surprised if the judge doesnt allow them to actually prove up. In either situation, this sort of foundation for this record. As i said, although it may not be state practice, i mean, normally, and you should know how to do it, and they do know how to do it, these kind of Technical Rules are not. Is there an indication that the prosecution held this back . None. You think this is really the case. Research, whatever. They figured it out. There was no question they were surprised and i think made a mistake with respect to the cross. Exactly. They did have the documents, they made a mistake. If they had seen it and known about it, it would have come out quite differently. This is them responding. Merchan says, what i could do is adjourn until tomorrow. The people want to get the witness here to testify about something that was testified about already, the people prepped mr. Cohen on the phone call, and its unfair to allow them to rest or not rest. What i could do, judge merchan says, is adjourn until tomorrow. Todd blanche, there was a scheduling issue, and the people rested and now they want time to bring in a west. People didnt rest though. I didnt hear them rest. Theyre on recess. Donald trump has walked out of the courtroom. Saying to the judge, thats not the way a trial is supposed to work, judge. He gets a little leeway, hes heated. We can tell tone here. Im pretty sure hes not berating the judge. Judge merchan, i have said this before, when youre in the courtroom, he has such dignity. I cant imagine that todd is taking that tone with him. Let me bring in former new york prosecutor and legal analyst, charles coleman. Where is this going . I think, chris, that what were going to see is the judge make a decision here around whether the prosecution should have made this decision or been aware of this earlier. I think to everyones point, its important to understand, number one, that this is not something that has coming after the prosecution has rested. And then number two, i dont think based off what we have heard from todd blanche, even though i understand his argument, he hasnt made a compelling argument as to any undo prejudice. Ultimately i think the judge is going to allow for the prosecution to be able to get this witness on the stand. The question is going to be one of scheduling. As far as what were hearing from the record, the defense has not given the judge a Strong Enough reason in terms of whatever prejudice will be caused by moving things around. Thats where i think things are going here. We want to bring in retired New York State judge jill konviser. Can i ask a rookie question. So if they really want to get this witness and the judge thinks its legit, and they should have the country to get in witness, does a judge have any leeway in getting the witness to get here and fast . The judge isnt going to get the witness here. Its the peoples responsibility, but it is the judge who will be saying you need to hurry up, weve got a schedule here, and you should have anticipated this, and that you didnt is on you, not on me. Youll suffer the consequences if you dont get here. When they say that we only just learned about this, they made a good faith belief this was going to come in, and they have been working over the weekend to get moving on it, does the judge give them leeway or does he have to keep this moving. You just heard what todd blanche had to say. They thought they were up next . Well, todd blanche can say that. If theres anything predictable about a criminal trial is its unpredictable. You cant say we didnt know and its our turn. Theres always going to be wrinkles in a case. The people want the opportunity to respond. They have certain evidence thats relevant, and maybe they should have anticipated it, and maybe we shouldnt be having this conversation, but certainly they should have that opportunity, and i think theyre going to get it. How much of a problem is this memorial day holiday weekend. This would be a prosecution witness on tuesday morning, and then you would have the defense going, and its pushing it. Theres no trial on wednesday and theres only half a day on thursday, and this is already delaying the closings until next tuesday. At least. Could they do their Charging Hearing on wednesday when the jury is out . They could. They can certainly do that, even if theres going going to be testimony thursday morning, as you said, i know they can work thursday morning. They can do the Charge Conference on wednesday, and if anyone wants to edify that, they can do it after the close of both sides, after both sides rest, which might be thursday or some other day. Theres nothing that precludes them from having a preliminary conversation, and continuing it at an appropriate time. Just seeing from the morning transcript, they expect the Charging Conference to take place tomorrow afternoon so that happens then assuming, right, the rest of this . Im curious, judge, what about the decision by judge merchan to not allow this cspan video . This is donald trump walking back in with todd blanche and his entourage. What do you think of that decision that is kicking off this debate about whether to bring in the cspan witness again . I think the judge is being particularly careful. I have heard the panel talking about stipulations, and catherine talked about what the state rules are, and we were talking about the federal rules as well. Generally, there can be stipulations. What the judge is saying is you need To Authenticate this photo. You havent done it. You should have anticipated it. That doesnt mean they dont get a chance to do that now. Theres no responsibility on the part of the defendant to stipulate to anything. They can decide to stipulate or not. Thats their choice. I dont hold that against them. I think judge merchan is crossing ts and dotting is, saying if you want this in authenticate it, and if you want To Authenticate it, do it quickly. Lets bring in Yasmin Vossoughian. I know you have been following this closely. Lets remind folks. I dont know if you had a chance or were standing near him when Lawrence Odonnell was on, and he talked about how how powerfully todd blanche was arguing against having this piece of information. Which leads us to believe it could be very critical. Reporter he doesnt want it in. And the prosecution needs it in. And its to refute that october 24th phone call, the moment that was brought up on thursday before our lunch break, if anybody can remember. Todd blanche raised his voice and essentially called Michael Cohen a liar about that october 24th phone call, the phone call he made to Keith Schiller, in which he handed the phone to donald trump and donald trump gave the go ahead to pay off Stormy Daniels. Let me read that exchange to remind i think its important for us to know what just happened in court. Merchan, okay, people, what did you find out. To Which Mangold says, cspan will make him available tomorrow at 9 30. And todd blanche says this will be the fifth or sixth time they have run out of witnesses and we have witnesses ready to go. Thats just wrong. Reporter thats just wrong. So here was the exchange from Last Thursday right before lunch that todd blanche wants the jury to remember. They dont want the jury to remember the testimony thats going to come from the cspan employee and the eventual video to be admitted as evidence through the cspan employee. Blanche said on may 16th, you said you had a recollection of a phone call on october 24th at 8 02 p. M. , and you called schiller, and he gave the phone to President Trump, and you gave trump an update, and he said, okay, go. Blanche says that was a lie. You did not talk to President Trump on that night. You talked to Keith Schiller about what we went through. He was talking about the fact that he was being harassed by a 14yearold. He was talking to Keith Schiller about this harassment, obtained this individuals phone number. Cohen says, im not certain that is accurate. Blanche goes on, you were certain it was accurate on tuesday when you were under oath and testifying. Cohen, based upon the records that are reviewed and in light of everything going on, i believe i spoke to mr. Trump about the Stormy Daniels party. Blanche, we are not asking for your belief. This jury does not want to hear what you think happened. So this is all an effort by the prosecution, guys, to refute that very testimony, that very crossexamination from todd blanche that he believes he won. That was a winning moment for the defense. They want to refute that moment by bringing this cspan employee in to testify tomorrow morning. So theres news, yasmin, on whats going to happen. Steinglass has said thats just wrong about, you know, not having witnesses ready. Merchan says, look, if time were of the essence, i would agree with you, mr. Blanch, but we are essentially off for a week. There is no prejudice. You can present your case out of order or witnesses take the stand at 9 30. Charge conference on thursday and tuesday summation. So theres no prejudice to anyone and nothing has changed. Blanche is going to speak to his client. Theyre going to work a full day thursday. That came from the transcript. The alternate juror and the judge says i was going to proceed without the alternate. Anyway. But the alternate jury who had a problem thursday, so thursday will be a full day. Can i have a reality check. Even if they put the witness on, how much time are we talking about, how much will it delay things. The witness will take, what, four seconds. This is going to take 96 seconds. A new york minute, whatever expression you want. Its basically you testified before, you have said how cspan keeps documents. Is that true for this exhibit, yes. We offer it. Is there an issue to take things out of order and before the defense has started. The judge offered that. Theres two ways we can proceed, adjourn now and take the witness tomorrow and do that and then the state will rest, and then the defense will go. Or we could just do out of order, which happens a lot in trials. The defense start asks theres a break. Witnesses are ill, theyre scheduling, flights get canceled and you take a witness out of order. Hes saying, let me know which way you wanted to do it, but giving the prosecution the opportunity To Authenticate. The principal guiding this is a trial is supposed to be a search for the truth, and here, to say that youre not going to have an opportunity To Authenticate something when everyone knows its authentic. Youre going to withhold a witness. That is not what a trial is supposed to be about. Give them the evidence that meets all the rules of evidence, and then obviously the jury can assess for what it wants. It is the correct ruling. Its so telling theres such a big fight about this, catherine. You know, i dont go as overboard as lawrence. Im so used to Defense Attorneys fighting over everything. I guess they roll over in federal court. That was a leading question. Is this so significant because theyre having to fight about it . Its more corroboration for Michael Cohen. If im the defense attorney, i dont want to corroborate him, i want to paint him as liar, liar, pants on fire. Its very important to eliminate this photo. Its not unusual. Do they roll over for you, andrew . I would say the professional courtesies on things like this are extended both ways. Still, both sides know how to do their job. Listening to catherine, it makes me happy i was practicing in federal court. Different world. The other thing that i think is useful for people to understand who dont see trials to underscore something catherine said, which is the fact that one side or the other suddenly raises their voice or speaks in a manner that shows, you know, conviction. Theres a performative aspect of this that certainly judges are immune to. Theyre like, you know, in some ways, its a signal that you dont have more. Judge merchan is so solid, thats not going to persuade him. Its like whats your argument . Could it also be as simple as a Scheduling Situation on their side. Judge merchan is standing up on the stand with his arms crossed because the trump team for the first time according to our man in the court. Stands up in Circle Chatting with trump being somewhat demonstrative as they decide how they want to move forward. Blanche walks forward and crouches between hoffinger and steinglass. Chris conroy joins the conversation, and they are all looking at papers. Steinglass seems to be sketching out a schedule. Merchan is standing up. Arms crossed. Judge, we may be able to short circuit this process a little. Steinglass says we will not call in a paralegal. Parties have agreed, and we can move on. This means no witness . Catherine, what happened here . Its a silly argument, and it seems like instead of the video, there will be a photo, if this is correct. Lets move on, get this over with. The judge basically said im allowing it, at which point, the defense, in order to be able to move ahead with their witnesses, you know, basically being pressured. You know what, youre going to have a delay. This will be introduced. They can start the questioning of Michael Cohen, and they can use this still image. They can say, look, they were together, and ask him a question about that moment. Judge merchan says mr. Blanche, do you consent. Yes. A strategic decision you discussed with your client, yes. Judge merchan, lets get the witness. That last part goes back to what i was saying is the judges being very careful about making sure for any defendant that the defendant is aware of whats going on. Its not just this case. They want to make sure the defendant later doesnt say my lawyer never told me, so that is going to put a little bit of a crimp in what donald trump wants to say publicly. This defendant may say that. Hes going to say whatever he wants to say. Its all rigged. Its a witch hunt. What is the question to Michael Cohen about the photo . Now theyre deleting this. Apparently theyre not theyre stipulating the photo comes in and Michael Cohen is not take k the stand again. No additional testimony from an additional witness. Were going to figure that out. If they were to ask Michael Cohen, what would the question be . I dont know if authentic, he was not there. When the jury looks at the evidence, this will be one of the exhibits they have. Exactly. With something indicating the time stamp is correct. This can be used in the summation. Absolutely. You can be sure this will be displayed by the prosecution. And the time stamp. Exactly. Remind us what its like for the jury in the courtroom when they see a piece of evidence and how will that be different when they are actually in the deliberation room. I know you saw what they were looking at in the courtroom. There has been some difference today according to rachel in the courtroom earlier, they seem less focused than on thursday you guys havent been in a jury room. I have. Tell us about it. My friends say i can spend more time talking about my experience as a juror than any of my prosecution cases. Its a terrible pandoras box. Tell us what its like in the jury room. As private citizens, its a memorable experience to be on a case thats disputed, on an emotional one. The jurors have a screen in front of them. So as exhibits are entered, if its displayed. They have it right in front of them. And then in the jury room, they can actually have the actual physical exhibit, and they can look at it and talk about it, and take notes and so they will have the ability to see all of that. Will they take their notebooks and be able to go back and reference those particular points . Yes. The judge has given instructions about their notes because their notes are not evidence and the judge said if youve got any disagreement, theres a transcript. The Court Reporter is taking everything down, so you can always get that, and that is exactly what happens. Dont get into a dispute over what your notes are. Many Process Information differently. Theyre asking about the photo. Im going to a pat myself on the back. Listen, counselor. I wanted to be a lawyer, i chose this instead, probably to the benefit of all legal clients out there. The picture shown, you recognize Keith Schiller and trump in the picture. Does this fairly and accurately portray schiller and trump from october 2016. Cohen says yes, maam. By the way, this is the image theyre hooking at or i approximates the image theyre looking at. Still photo from the end of the video that concluded around 7 57 on october 24th. Hoffinger, you testified that you spoke to donald trump and Keith Schiller on that call during this time period in october 2016. Did you have a number of conversations with trump about Stormy Daniels . Cohen, i do. Yes, maam. Some in person. Some on phone. Some longer, some herrer. Approximately how many conversations did you have with donald trump regarding Stormy Daniels. Michael cohen says more than 20 so its not just this call, hes saying. This call, you might want to focus on it, but i had a lot of them. Hoffinger, did you review any materials before you testified. And Michael Cohen answered yes, it helped. Yes. They were skillful to counselor turs point, the way to give it a little bit more color as opposed to putting it in separately. You couldnt have the witness say this is the date and exact time. I wonder they wanted to place it around the time. Theyre not just giving him a photograph while deliberating. Here is why and where it matters. Many jurors might be thinking what sort of response. A lot of times in trials, what you want to sort of train the jurors to know is a lot of issues get raised on cross and you want during the trial the jurors to know lets wait and see what happens on redirect. A lot of things that seem to be issued can be answered. Do you remember the conversations he told you to work out, pay off with aw, cohen says yes, maam. Hoffinger, do you have any doubt that you had a conversation with donald trump to work it out. Cohen says no doubt. Aw is Allen Weisselberg. Do you have any doubt in your mind trump gave you the final signoff. Cohen, quote, no doubt. Hoffinger, could you pay stormy without the sign off, no, maam, because i wanted to ensure i was going to get my funds back. Hoffinger, do you have any doubt that mr. Trump would pay you . Cohen, he said that. Hoffinger, would you have made the payment if he did not. Cohen, no, maam. So that is the whole litany of what they as prosecutors and what we when were writing a story would be called sign posting. We want to put up the sign flag it. Tell the jury this is the sequence we saw happen, and you have visual evidence you can look at while deliberating. Thats a lie on crossexamination. Its a surprising clean up. Did you expect it to be this i mean, it feels like its quite a clap back, am i wrong to say that . Unless he was lying, and i said theres no way hes lying, they would have known that, theyll be able to clean that up. He had to have talked to trump numerous times. Thats what you said be just before 4 00 on thursday when everybody was abuzz on that. Charles, if you are putting together the final argument and youre on the defense, do you bring up this picture, or do you say, the prosecution would like you to believe because there was a picture of Keith Schiller with donald trump around the time a phone call was made that this means something. We have no idea except the word of a liar, Michael Cohen, of what was said on that phone call. Im channelling you very poorly, but what would you do with it or just ignore it . I think part of the issue is you have to decide how much emphasis you want to place on that actual phone call. I think there have been a number of different inconsistencies that have surfaced through the crossexamination of Michael Cohen, and as a defense attorney, you have to then make the decision which of those do you think are going to be most monumental. I understand todd blanche believes that was his big hay maker, he was able to land on the prosecutions case in terms of discrediting Michael Cohen. And it does matter. If you are going to rely on it, ultimately you have to figure out a way as to minimize the actual picture and make it a footnote and place the emphasis back on the inconsistency of Michael Cohen, and the reason they should believe you is because Michael Cohen is a proven liar. So all of this ultimately comes down to how do you want to play Michael Cohens character in front of the jury if youre going to focus on this phone call. You still have to deal with the picture, but you try to make it a footnote so the jury is not overly distracted and it doesnt seem like the prosecution has completely rehabilitated him. Katy, as an aspiring lawyer, i took from the way you looked at me. Im looking for affirmation, if this doesnt work out, i may have to go to law school. Quite a fair share of us, and we looked at the lsats do i want to study for that much. We all started in local courthouses. Overlap in terms of investigative reporting and how to do interviews, and how to present a story, and thinking about the audience and how to do a beginning, middle and end. Did you always want to be a lawyer . No, but i love being a lawyer. Its work certainly for the five of us on this table. I think. At least the two of you having written best selling books, now, most recently you. Great. Congratulations to you. Yours wasnt so bad either. Lets get back to charles coleman. Theyre taking another break, having technical difficulties. I imagine, charles, and you tell me what you think, is this the last moments of Michael Cohen on the stand . I think so. They have achieved and at the end of the day, i think both sides are aware theres a certain level of fatigue you dont want to lose the jury with. At some point, whoever seems like theyre responsible for keeping the witness on the stand far too long, is exposing themselves by being punished by the jury. I think at the end of the day, all of the juice out of the Michael Cohen orange has been squeezed and everything is already out, and so, yes, we are nearing the end of his testimony, for both the prosecution and the defense. The defense is going to come out, and they might have one or two witnesses, maybe none. Maybe one will be donald trump. Probably not. Im going to bet not. And im curious, catherine, as you think about the way you might present this case, what sort of witness would you want to come on if you were to call one . I would not call witnesses. If you were to. If he said youre not going to get paid unless you call a witness. If they think robert costello, and he testified in a grand jury, and yes, Michael Cohen was still indicted, but you can indict literally a ham sandwich. You want someone who can go against the credibility of Michael Cohen, but if its not going to be against the credibility as regards to the falsification of the records. What would the charge against the ham sandwich be . You can literally charge a ham sandwich. The former chief judge at the new York State Court said that many years ago. If youre challenging the credibility of Michael Cohen as a witness with a lawyer who works with Rudy Giuliani. Thats my point. Also tried to stop him from flipping. Its not the best decision to call him as a witness. What is costello going to argue for the defense, if hes called. I think hes going to talk about statements that Michael Cohen made to him that are inconsistent with his current testimony. That has been admitted by cohen on the stand saying i lied to him because i didnt trust him, and i completely grow with catherine, not only has the jury seen quite damaging communications by costello from which the jury could infer he was part of an effort to put it plainly, obstruct justice, the state knows exactly what its going to stay. If you remember, costello sought to go in the grand jury before the case was indicted and he did go into the grand jury, they are, to use the expression, loaded. If youre going to put on a witness whos going to impeach Michael Cohen on something, a piece of what he has to say, you want the cleanest witness possible. In and out and raise further reasonable doubt as to Michael Cohens story. I dont think thats costello. He may be one of these Stalking Horse where they trot that out there but they dont intend to call him. We have to take a quick break. Were going to stay on the new developments from the courthouse, waiting for Michael Cohen to get back on the stand, fixing technical difficulties. Well be right back. Culties. Well be right back. Cant filter out the real you. So go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a oncedaily pill for moderate to severe Plaque Psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. Its like the feeling of finding youre so ready for your closeup. Or finding you dont have to hide your skin just your background. Oncedaily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. Dont take if youre 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. Its not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. Find what Plaque Psoriasis has been hiding. Theres only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. So clearly you. Sotyktu. vo sail through the heart of historic cities so clearly you. And unforgettable scenery with viking. Unpack once and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life and cultural treasures. Because when you experience europe on a viking longship, youll spend less time getting there and more time being there. Viking. Exploring the world in comfort. When migraine strikes, youre faced with a choice. Accept the trade offs of treating . Or push through the pain and symptoms . With ubrelvy, theres another option. One dose quickly stops migraine in its tracks. Treat it anytime, anywhere without worrying where you are or if its too late. Do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. Allergic reactions to ubrelvy can happen. Most common side effects were nausea and sleepiness. Migraine pain relief starts with you. Ask about ubrelvy. Learn how abbvie could help you save. Unnecessary action hero. The nemesis. Learn how abbvie it appears that despite my sinister efforts, employees are still managing their own hr and payroll. Why would you think mere humans deserve to do their own payroll . Because their livelihoods depend on it . Because they have bills to pay . Hear me now, paycom return the world of hr and payroll to its rightful place of chaos or face a tsunami of unnecessary the likes of which you have never seen and theyre all coming . Those who are still with us, yes. Grandpa whats this . Your wings. Light em up gentlemen, its a beautiful. Day to fly