Outlined in carefully choreographed testimony today how he boosted donald trump in his tabloids, how his entire apparatus blasted trumps rivals blatantly bogus stories and how he struck and off the books packed with trump to bury stories to bolster his 2016 election chances by Bamboozling American voters. The former trump friends, but two plus hours on the stand today as the former president was there glaring, as you can see here in this court sketch from across the room. And what marx, a no doubt about it betrayal for the politician who most prizes loyalty and new tonight, donald trump is again testing the limits of what he can say and how far he can push the judge who is presiding over this trial before he is actually punished. Now in a new interview, trump is committing what looks like and sounds like a pretty clear cut violence relation of that gag order that restricts what he can say about some of the main characters. In this case, who witnesses such as former fixer, Michael Cohen and heres what he told that cnn affiliate wpvi, just a short time ago Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and hes got no credibility whatsoever. He was a lawyer and you rely on your lawyers weve got a whole big panel here with us today. But first lets bring in c in an anchor, john berman, who has been poring over these transcripts. All de jian, there you are. Oh, over here now, you switched over. John, which just just tell us what is catching your eye today at this house. All right. So youre talking about the gag order hearing. First of all, i mean, all my papers are messed up now, theres a lot of papers and transcripts from the Hearing Today, more than 50 pages of transcripts from the gag order hearing. None of those pages are particularly good for donald trump or his lawyer, todd blanche, youve got very contentious between the judge, juan merchan and todd blanche. Let me just read you a little bit of this. Blanche, the attorney said this gag order. We are trying to comply with it, and there is no doubt that we are here about ten different purported violations President Trump is being very careful to comply with, your honore, as rules and the judge cuts in you mr. Blanche you are losing all credibility. I have to tell you that right now, you are all credibility with the court goes on a little bit later with blanche saying, to the extent that your honor views the posts about mr. Cohen and the system is being too close to the line. Tell President Trump, tell me, and we will make sure its not violated. Helped me help you. In other words, hes saying the judge says, as far as the whole distinction between reposts, you have stated its ambiguous. You stated you didnt know, but again, i hate to come back to this, but youre not offering anything to support your argument. Blanche, the attorney says, but youre honore. The judge says, i was not done never a good thing. You are not giving me anything to hang my hat on to say, yeah, youre right. The reposts that was unambiguous unambiguous as his the rest of our panel, who is here with us. Weve got brian skelter, who is a Special Correspondent for vanity fair, robert gray, who was a former counsel to President Trump. Lot of questions for him during the first impeachment stacy schneider, manhattan criminal defense attorney, and temidayo agangawilliams, who is a former Senior Investigative counsel for the january 6 committee, and tim, you have given what you just heard from berman, theyre talking about how this day started for trumps legal team and what this looked like. What does that spell . Well talk about what it means for the gag order. But what does it mean when thats the relationship between the judge and the lead Defense Counsel on de really date two of this as a litigator that really just made me cringe. I mean, i think i cannot imagine or more problematic way for a judge to perceive you. So early in a trial, to have your credibility question by a judge. Thats about as low as you can gov as a lawyer in a courtroom. I think there was a really bad day. I think why it matters that its the tone going forward. Theres gonna be a lot more skirmishes in front of this, judge. Clearly, were going to learn more at a sidebar, but the gag order, theres gonna be other evidentiary rulings. This judge, you want him to like to like if youre the Defense Lawyer here, i think they havent some say he doesnt believe you that you werent credible on de two effectively thats a really, really bad sign because going forward, when you make that argument went to close call. Hes going against you and going for the people so can i can i pose the question . To you that i sort of asked at the end of the last hour, which is what is the impact really on this trial . Robert of trump repeatedly violating gag order. I understand its about protecting the witnesses. Its protecting the jurors. But on the actual trial itself, whats the impact, if any . My first reaction. So thats really a sideshow. The jury is of course not a price of any of this and likely will be kept in the dark about any resolution with regard to the gag order, unless somebody is doing what theyre not supposed to be doing, which is following Media Stories in the press while the trial is ongoing. So i think the effect is zero as far as todd blanche is concerned, i mean, maybe ive gotten into more and more trouble than some of my colleagues that i should have. But i mean, as a Defense Lawyer, im more than happy for the judge to be taking me on as opposed to my client and look, todd blanche is not going to be easily intimidated. I think hes going to try to win Purchase Client to follow the letter and the spirit of the gag order. But look, the fact of the matter is this is what everybody warned about, including me, which is a trial in the middle of a campaign cycle. And there is inevitably going to be collision between the terms of a gag order that prevents the former president of the united states, who was the leading president ial candidate from being able to respond with regard to information that is potentially politically damaging if Michael Cohen is free, go out there and speak, its a little odd to be trying to put a a muzzle around the defendant on trial partly understandable because youre trying to protect witnesses, but this is an unusual case and youve got perhaps the governments lead witness out there in public. And frankly should be, i think at managed by the prosecution to just, you know, stop what youre doing until youre done testifying a trial, then you want to have added want to talk all you want. Go right ahead. But to muzzle donald trump when youve got other witnesses where at least one other words its out there speaking. What well, is a muslim, i mean, thats under threat of attack witness under any grant talk about the jurors under god but what difference does that make any big would it doesnt make you look at safety of the witnesses are paramount, but the president , who is a candidate for office has got to be able to respond with regard to matters that involve but thats some that didnt have all that involve the campaign and if this becomes what everybody was concerned about, what i was concerned about was essentially a sideshow for people to explore how to do damage to donald trump in the political process that is not something that he is going to tolerate, and he will tolerate contempt and not allow that line to be cross. The judge. I understand the judge can do what it is the judge thinks is right. But donald trump is a president ial candidate, has to do what he thinks is right. And theres going to be a collision. And if its pressed and this thing goes beyond like 1,000 fine or whatever with regard each violation and the judge decides to take him on and tried to put him in custody. I can tell you that that will bring this trial to a halt. Well, thats why thats because there will be an immediate appeal. I do. A juror who held the start to wonder if you think that there is any validity to the idea that maybe what the judge also might have to do is say to a Michael Cohen or say to prosecutors, you gotta get your witness under control. He cannot be out there talking about this case. And creating this spectacle on the side. No problem is the defendant himself doesnt have that type of gag order. The gag order is to protect the witnesses in the case from vitriol, from donald trump but a typical trial might have a gag order where no one is allowed to talk about the case because the judge doesnt want people trying their case out in the court of public opinion. They wanted to stay inside the courtroom we dont have that kind of situation, but to say that this case is political and preventing donald trump from exercising his First Amendment right. This is a business fraud allegation, pure and simple. Its about allegedly falsifying Business Records and things that went on that trump is alleged to have run an expense of paying somebodys silence through his Business Records and doing it falsely. I dont see the political connection until we get into the campaign influencing which is the second part of this complicated felony charge. Also, donald trump spoke to the cameras on multiple occasions today. He did an interview on his way to his Gag Order Violation Hearing today criticizing Michael Cohen calling him a criminal, and segall thing. So at this moment, he is certainly not muzzled, but brian, i wonder when youre looking at this and after that got out of the way, david pecker took the stand in resumed this and this is this tabloid king and it was just its remarkable to see him sitting there, not this far from trump, but going into detail about when he met trump and he was so impressed by him. But obviously weve seen how dramatically that relationship has been reshaped. The totally admitted into a scheme to help get trump elected i covered the enquirer and pecker back in the mid in 2018, Millions Backroom Deals with history, but this was eight years ago when these tablet covers were coming out Promoting Trump and disparaging hillary clinton. I was covering this pretty extensively, but i learned a lot today. Theres a lot that we didnt know at the time. Thats been exposed under oath. Pecker has never given an interview about these secrets. So now, for the first time these have come out whether you call it a conspiracy, the way the prosecutors do, it was clearly an alliance that went much deeper than was evidenced to readers or viewers or anybody at the time so from a media standpoint, we learned a lot about how this worked and how trump is using one of the most sleazy brands out there, the National Enquirer to launder his attacks against his opponent thats now of course, hes much less subtle. He just does it in front of the cameras. But even at those pressers, youve been describing, theyre not really pressers is not taking questions. Most of the time at those moments where hes speaking front of the cameras, hes not saying much, hes repeating the same talking points. Hes reading the same tweets from his friends he seems to be in a very narrowed echo chamber without much newest sorry, you could argue that this is just the art of repetition thats a great knows very well. He understands that if he just reads the same thing over and over again. Were still going to take it live through shai brian was talking about how david pecker admitted to a scheme to help donald trump get elected explicitly testifies to the scheme in where he was when it was hatched in this testimony, you have really for the first time today talks about this august 15th August 20 meeting where Michael Cohen calls them and says, hey, come to trump tower, meet with donald trump. And then this is the exchange here. The attorney, the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, asked, can you describe for the jury what happened at that meeting, please . Pecker testifies at that meeting, donald trump and michael, they asked me what i can do in what my magazines could do to help the campaign. So thinking about it as i did previously, i said what i would do is i would run or published positive stories about mr. Trump and i would publish negative stories about his opponents. I said i would be your eyes and ears because i know the Trump Organization had a very small staff and then i said that anything i hear in the marketplace, if i hear anything negative about yourself or if i hear anything about women selling stories, i would notify Michael Cohen as i did over the last several years, i would notify Michael Cohen and then he would be able to have them kill in another magazine or have them not to be published, or somebody would have to purchase them steinglass, the prosecutor asks purchased the negative stories about mr. Trump, so they would not get published me. You mean and pecker says that they would not get published yes. I mean, im brian and what they basically laid out with those questions and answers from david pecker the questions in the prosecutors was the National Enquirer would get a tip. Those are donald trump, david pecker would be alerted. Hed call Michael Cohen and asked Michael Cohen what to do. And Michael Cohen according to david pecker and will hear the crossexamine and what Michael Cohen has to say about this. But he would say well, let me call the boss and see what he wants to do with the Karen Mcdougal story with it . Other stories. What do you want to do about this . Ironically, this is the kind of scandal that the National Enquirer, one of exposed in almost any other scenario. The enquirer had a history for all its flaws, for all of its faults of reporting on politicians on both sides of the aisle. For exposing scandals and controversies and polit politicians. Words they didnt in this. Example but instead pecker because he was go ahead, are long relationship with trump and saw a benefit to that enquirer decided to pick a horse, right aside to get in line with trump and create a protrump propaganda outlet, which is really what the enquirer was. But hes never fessed up to this until today in court its not just that part. I mean, if it were just that, then it would be unsavory bad bad for journalism. Maybe bad ethically the issue now is what happened next, does it a crime or is it a crime . And hello. Well, take everything that you just said is true. If the campaign had gone to the federal Election Commission had said we want to make a payment to suppress this story. And we want to use Campaign Funds to do it. What would the federal Election Commission have said they would have said, are you out of your mind . Thats a personal expense. We also have a competent fec and thats not a Campaign Expenditure and the flip side of that, if thats so is that it cant be you ask the question is, is it a crime . Prosecution is going to have to prove that this is a concealed Illegal Campaign contribution. And thats going to get hung up on the axle. I think of testimony that youre likely to hear on my imagined during the defense case or through crossexamination about wait a second. Now thats not the ftcs view of this. They would not have viewed this as a legitimate campaign. I think i do think it just as i go through this transcript and you look carefully at the exchanges, it is why i think the prosecutor and david pecker always leads into this was a campaign meeting. What can i do for the campaign, right . Mbe that they close this circle in the next few days, but thats in here, thats in the transplant youd expect that toe there. They are becse they know they have to prove it. Im just saying sot does seem like theyre conscious of the issue that youre bringing up . Yeah. I dont as i sit here, i dont know the answer to that question definitively as a tter of law, ijust suggesting that i think thats a legitimate defense. We dot know how ths going to come out and enlarge part. Itll depend on ultitely, the jue and what the form of the Jury Instructions will be. But i thits Gitimate Legal Question not entirely clear what the answer yes. Oth thing, i an, just to drl do a little bion what youre saying and im Curious Abouthe other lawys at the table if trumpad just made the payment himself, its a rsonal expense. Hed labeled here. Thats right. But he did not do tt becaushe was trying tconceal it. So yeahi would say all the surrounding facts here. I think robert undercut the hypothetical you put forward, right . If this were simply a personal matter, he could have done something that was far more simplistic. And i think what the prosecution did here effectively it was to set the table as to how this is all connected to the campaign. Had david pecker event effectively was brought on as a and actor to help further trumps chances of winning the presidency. Now, there is a world where perhaps the epc mightve taken a view that is not, those are not the facts that we have here. I think we are talking about Donald Trumps intent when youre saying why did he, if its oven direct, the hes fortification of Business Records. And was that for the purpose of concealing an election unlawful attempted to play with election. I think the fats here are coming out the gate strong from t