As former President Trumps lawyer for tried to discredit her story and her motivation for telling it, often using her career in the adult Film Industry for reference one exchange reading quote, necklace, the lawyer saying you have a lot of experience of making phony stories about sex appear to be real. Daniels responds, wow, thats not how i would put it. The second in the films is very much real, just like what happened to me in that room. The sex is real. Thats why its Pornography Necklace than asking, now, you have a story youve been telling about having sex with President Trump daniels answers, if that story was untrue, i would have written it to be a lot better. And thats not the only moment where trumps team highlighted daniels work in the adult Film Industry. Caitlin know, its certainly not. They repeatedly pointed to that and there was another moment where trumps attorney, Susan Nicholas daniels and choose questioning her, and nicholas asked her and im quoting trumps attorney now, she said you acted had sex over 200 porn movies. Daniels responded it was 150. Nicholas responded to that, but according to you, seeing a man sitting on a bet and a tshirt and boxers . So shorts, referencing the former president was so upsetting that you got lightheaded. The blood luck youre hands and feet and you almost fainted Stormy Daniels pushing back saying yes, she was surprised to indeed see the future president of the United States like that, given he was twice her age and his body guard was standing outside that hotel suite im here outside of the courthouse was seen as chief Legal Affairs correspondent, paula reid, and cnns Chief Domestic correspondent, Phil Mattingly. Moments ago, the judge said they will take a break for lunch, and obviously Stormy Daniels was on the stand for an incredible amount of time, paula, now, it is a Trump Organization. Employee who is testifying about something that is less salacious than what we heard from Stormy Daniels. But maybe just as important because she is essentially talking about how this paper trail of getting these checks Trump Organization in new york to the white house In Washington, did it. They werent just sent to the white house. She was sending them to the personal homes of two top trump aides, johnny mac and t and q its schiller. Thats exactly right. And the reasons she has to testify because of the trump team will not stipulate that yes, this is how the checks went from the Trump Organization to the White House Security route. But to eventually to the white house. Once he became president , they will not stipulate that is a defense strategy. They want to bog the jury down and as much mundane Task Testimony as possible, which is why for were hearing from her about the journey these checks take. Well, most people will probably be thinking and talking about Stormy Daniels testimony and the salacious things we heard. In fact, is when the jury goes eventually to engage in their deliberations about the actual criminal charges here allegedly falsifying Business Records. I heard testimony is going to be something that they are going to have to consider it. Think about, okay, lets think about where these checks came from. Who had eyes on them . Where they were going. So not the most exciting witness, but she is an important Building Block to try to prove these charges. I mean, this jury probably needs a bit of a breather. I mean, they just listened to six hours of intense testimony and intense crossexamination from trumps team. I mean, there are some questions about what was the strategy that trumps team was using going into this today . Because it seemed pretty effective on tuesday afternoon as were crossexamining her basically accusing her of extorting trump today, part of the question phil was on whether or not they actually had dinner the night that she met trump and they were supposed to have dinner. The escalation, i think in tone and tenor from the defense was dramatic, and i think very, very tangible compared to what wed seen at the beginning of their crossexamination, you mentioned that it wasnt just tone, it was actually kind of Subject Matter and focus as well. Look to begin killing. You may have said this really clear. There is a very shaming aspect to it on some level, on some of the things you were just sitting there and its worth noting that the waste from daniels tells the story the reason why she went up to Donald Trumps room. She was supposed to be meeting him for dinner. Shes supposed to go up to his room to go to dinner. And the reason why she was surprised is because theyd had a Conversation Serwer to the bathroom when before shed gone to the bathroom, he was fully dressed when she came back out. He was sitting there and his underwear. So i think my question as ive been watching this play out, as are reporters in the room have been reporting through it is what happened to trigger a shift didnt tone and or ship shift in Subject Matter in terms of where the defense was going with this cross and whats the jury think of it because in the end, those 12 people were really all that matters here. And the prosecution didnt seem to think maybe that they had all that much to do on cleanup because it was pretty short when they got up to the question her after trumps attorneys had had their moment with her this morning . Yeah. They didnt seem too worried. They got through a couple little nitpicky things and moved on really swiftly. The Trump Defense team, they needed to keep the client out of jail. And right now, the possibility of jail looms large because if he violates the gag order again by attacking a witness like for example, Stormy Daniels, uh, judges made it clear he will consider sending him to jail. So if the Defense Attorneys in order to allay trumps frustrations and concerns about what Stormy Daniels said on tuesday, if they have to get up and go in the weeds about the paranormal possum or all these other things . We went just so far down the rabbit hole, things, no Material Value to this case. If thats what they have to do to appease their client, to keep him in line and keep him out of jail. I get it. Yeah. I didnt have pawsome being in the court record. I did not want my bingo card this morning Phil Mattingly, paula reid we will get back to us as we are monitoring this, the court is taking a quick break. Briana, as they wait to bring up this witness back, and that is when we do expect trumps attorneys to question this witness and type that courtroom briana all right. Yeah. Well be watching after the break here. Caitlin, thank our panel here with us In Washington. As we digest some of what weve seen today, which has really been a little bit of everything. Elie, i wonder what you think moving being from the Stormy Daniels crossexamination, redirect now to the bookkeeper, whats whiplash for sure for the jury, but this is the natural ebb and flow of trials youll have a super dramatic contentious moments followed by more mundane moments. I think when i look back now at the Stormy Daniels crossexamination sort of in total to me, it was a tale of two crossexaminations yesterday, the last hours are tuesday, the last hour or so was extraordinarily effective. I think they really undermined Stormy Daniels credibility. Her motives. Shed made prior inconsistent statements. She hates trump. Shes openly cheering for him to go to jail. I thought that was very effective. Today to me, was off the rails though the line of question that we opened this segment with about while youre in pornography, you know how to fake stories about sex. All of that is useless. Its pointless. I think it probably turns the jury more in Stormy Daniels favor. I think they just completely lost the thread this morning with the crossexamined the number one rule of Legal Practice generally is know when to say when and at a certain point you have gotten the information in the record and get out of there and they open themselves up to things that actually heard the defense to that hurt their cause. A better are not a better example. But another example of this was at one point, Susan Necklace asks a question and refers to the indictment. And Stormy Daniels says which indictment theres a lot of indictments and then the defense braise. There arent kicked and screamed. Does that objection. Get it out of the record. And the judge let it in because it was the responsive answer. Now, had they cut themselves off yesterday, they could have avoided all of these situations like this. Were Stormy Daniels as we saw in the introduction here, was actually quite effective at pushing back and coming off as responsive and witty the incredible and frankly vulnerable in these answers, it seems like many legal observers looking at this and i think just even political observers, people who observe trump believe that a lot of this is trump directed. Oh yeah, because part of the Legal Process and you know, this having represented people is client man right. Just talk a little bit about that before we talk about the political goings of great things about being a prosecutors, you dont have a client thats where all of the american United States of america in your ear at lunch exactly. And our reporting by paula and the team ended up being spot on yesterday afternoon. We talked about it when it broke, Briana The Reporting came out that donald trump himself was urging his team to be more aggressive go longer on the cross was Stormy Daniels today that has to be what happened because i dont think any good tactician and these are all really good petitions would have done that that way, if not for the client, urging them to do so. Well, we know what donald trump said in his book, which they used, which is if you attack me, im going to attack you back. And thats exactly what occurred on lets stand. I mean, she was called everything crazy, dishonest money hungry, anxious for fame and it just didnt go anywhere because it wasnt relevant to the case and all they were trying to do was to destroy her and say, youre lying. You always lie. Thats what you do for a business. You lie you lie on pornographic movies, you lie, and the thing about Stormy Daniels does she didnt give an inch she did not give an inch. And im wondering how the jury will react to that because she was being attacked. And i dont know whether they would like that. Yeah. I take out the human stuff, the personality is what we think of all these people and so on. And just look at what was in the record at the end of the day hey, on tuesday and it was a tax on the witnesses credibility, and attacks on the witnesses financial motivations, and those were in, fall. You dont gain anything can go. Again, think that the other day though was less effective for her as a witness. And this stay because the way they structured the crossexamination, for example, what the first thing they asked her crossexamination, you hate donald trump doped you. She said yes, honest answer but a big hey, against the persons credibility of a witness hates the guy in the defendants chair. Its a big deal thats really important for the jury to know they confronted her with a prior inconsistent statement. The way i would have by the way, i handled the whole sexual encounter if i was the defense team one question you say in 2018, you signed a statement that that sexual encounter never happened, didnt you and she wouldve said yes, but i was forced to sign it or ive signed because im scared, but leave it at that. Just leave it with the jury. He told you one thing, but she signed a statement afterwards saying it never happened. Thats so much more effective than picking it the margins of while you were at dinner. But you said you ate dinner, but did you eat that . Do you think thats because social moores around sex have changed, right . Its not 2008, its not 2007 is not 2015. We are postmetoo to post all of the other allegations against the former president and people are much more familiar with the idea of sexual ambivalence in an encounter. So you cant just throw a woman up there say youre a porn star in an era where young people are calling her a sex work. Great point, it feels like a different approach, like they did the thing you would do in the 90s, which is to have a woman do that cross exam, but im wondering from a legal perspective is this thing youre talking about fundamentally different from the way you might have talked about it, right . Ten or 15 years ago when just the very virtue two of what she does for a living in of itself would be the Credibility Problem earlier in the week i made i made a similar comment and sort of booked in agree with me on that point i suggested that i still think there are jurors are going to hear the word porn star and still judge, here on account of that fact, now, society, i agree with that part, but for instance, and again, i dont want to quote directly because were hearing this thing paraphrase, but kind of saying you did phony six and then Stormy Daniels has to say like, i dont think you know what porn is. My everyone gets to laugh at that. And as you said, its sort of going further into territory that isnt necessarily working for you in terms of what its supposed to do, which is to undermine her somehow. Lie. It seems like donald trump is running the show because it seems kind of outdated and i know that im just curious like, what are you hearing in the way theyre going down this path and whether theyre actually equipped to go down that path. And maybe thats why it felt a little skits for our social mores, change, and you have to adjust for that if youre a courtroom lawyer, youre jury is 12 people who live in manhattan in 2024. And i think youre right. I think this would have played very differently in 1952, your honor, your Urine Pornography my goodness, in 2024 in manhattan i dont think anyone cares and i certainly dont think people see that as a sign of dishonesty yeah, i would say no. I still think i still think there are folks who are who are still trapped in the 19 mindset who were judging this. But i think as a general matter, number one absolutely societies evolved on these points and you just ought not go there anymore. And number two they just appear to be beating up the witness in a way that humanized her, in a way that she was not the day before because it was the day before tuesdays before it was purely inconstant assistances in her statements, not statements. Calling into question her choice of profession. And the mere fact that because she had sex with somebody on camera, that therefore that opened the door to this conduct with the former president. And the fact that shes making money off of this was something that they also really delved into, but they have meaning of her encounter on her with john and so they delved into that the candles she sold and everything else. The book and but theyre representing a client who makes money off of everything and cells, bibles and so thats a bit of a problem where the issue on a social moores i think i contradict myself as i think about it is also they have to put themselves in in their mindset back to that time to think what would make a president ial candidate scramble who had spent the prior ten years in the tabloids literally as xy is fighting on the ski slope looks like Everybody Knows these past stories. So why would this suddenly become a thing that needs to be a panic even among the bookkeepers this guy and that guy. So i think that this this is the part thats a little tricky about talking about this case is we have our now understanding, but were asking ourselves to go back in time and think, would this has been a scandal and what would they do . How far would they have gone to deal with that scans are good we were talking about 2006 and 2000 and 2010 and the before time and also people just been informed by having spent much of their life in a pre me to era. Certainly. All right. We have so much to talk about obviously, so everyone stay with me, if you will. Were getting all of these Trial Updates because reporters have been in the courtroom watching the drama happen live. We are in a lunch break, but court will be resuming here in not too long. Are reporters when we joining us live next day . Were here to get your sayyed of the store affairs, bribery, prostitution. Why do we keep ending up . You cant write this stuff. United states of scandal with jake tapper. Now streaming on macs you need new Replacement Windows, but youre just not sure if theyre in the budget this year, right . Im brian gary here with ted koons from renewal by anderson and hes here to talk about how to make Window Replacement more affordable. Well, first, brian, you dont have to do them all. You could just replace your worst windows first or another way to make them afforda