nitric oxide, support, blood pressure, and improve heart-healthy rush to walmart and find total bce. >> laura coates, live next on cnn close captioning is brought to you by tableau. >> watch, pause and record live tv subscription free. start watching tv for free with tablet well switching to tableau has really been a money saver without a monthly subscription was amazing quarter today at tableau tv.com donald trump's criminal trial goes into overdrive. time and the ball is about to be in the jury's court tonight on a special edition alarm codes live 12 new york jurors are just a few hours now away from finally delivering what they have spent weeks listening to one of the highest cases and all of american history and tomorrow morning around 10:00 eastern, they're going to get specific instructions to follow from the judge four there then sent off to really talk amongst themselves and we all wish i do. we could be a fly on the wall, but we will have to wait for this smoke signal to know just what they decide and on day 21, yesterday, 21 of trump's trial, the jury is today got some final words to consider actually, they got a lot of words. it consider. do you realize that closing arguments lasted more than seven hours about three for the defense who went first and then nearly five hours for the process. isn't even an until about 8:00 tonight. >> now, one thing that jurors have to grapple what's rounds? >> well, a person you're gonna guess correctly when i say his name, michael cohen, how important is he trying to say whether trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? well, according the defense, they argue is credibility is so damaged that none of what he said should ever be considered in the jury's decision todd blanche saying michael cohen, he is the embodiment, the human embodiment of reasonable doubt. literally. >> blanche went on. michael cohen is the gloat he's literally the greatest liar of all time, not much of it, yeah, glow there. bland sends that you cannot you cannot send somebody to prison. you cannot convict somebody. well, objection. >> the court sustained. mr. blanche saying you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of michael cohen now there was an objection and it was the right one to make because referencing prison was a huge deal. i'll explain why in just a moment. but the defense countered the prosecution's attack on cohen head-on with this steinglass, the person who is the prosecutor in this case said michael cohen significance in this case so that he provides context and hello to the documents. the phone records the texts, the recordings. he's like a tour guide through the physical evidence, but those documents don't lie and they don't forget yunnan to say those documents, i get everything you need to know. you don't need michael cohen to connect these dots. but as the ultimate insider, he can help you to do just that. joining us now, former attorney for michael cohen, lanny davis. lanny. good to see you this evening. i know that you and i have had several conversations over the course of this trial we both expected that michael cohen would be a significant part of the trial and a significant can part of the summations. and today did not disappoint. i do wonder what you made of the way the prosecution and the defence over about eight hours worth of time laid out their case, talking about michael cohen cohen would you make of it well, first of all, i think both sides had great legal representation. >> i do think there's a difference in the way the jury heard the presentation between labeling and character attacks on making the case as if michael cohen is the indicted accused person versus looking at hard evidence and documents that can't lie, that established the guilt on the two charges, and those two very difficult choices for a jury to make because they will be influenced by character and labeling versus evidence i didn't centers in front of them but let me at least try to simplify my view of this, laura, by just basic questions the jury has to face. that are factual questions and i'll trust their decision because i believe in the jury system, whether they acquit or convict or rather they're split. question number one, i think is powerful in favor of the prosecution did donald trump have political motivation to buy the hush money method to keep stormy daniels is a fair quiet. was it politically motivated? now, if the answer is yes, you may not like the statute that cause that a crime, but it's a crime and i can tell you it's a crime because michael cohen went to prison with federal prosecutors who worked for donald trump calling it not only a crime to give money to keep somebody quiet with bad information that one candidate may not want voters to here, actually, trump's prosecutors called that crime and impairment and accuracy. >> but what's number two? i want to hear the number two. >> well, number two is did donald trump lie when he called the $35,000 a month checks to michael cohen? legal fees. if the jury believes that he lied, then that's the motivation for the false booking which federal prosecutors working for donald trump said there was a false booking that call them legal fees. but was donald trump lying when he called them legal fees? and so my question that i think the jury will have to answer is when michaels statement is weighed against allen weisselberg's notes, it's allen weisselberg's notes that speak louder than michael cohen's version his notes say $130,000 as part of the equation that led to $35,000 a month checks by donald trump, $130,000 cannot be legal. manny, we're not going to overtime each other. i don't want to have a conversation. i'm going to interject. thank you. >> so when you're talking about allen weisselberg's notes and this is important product, the actual, the audience is seeing that on the screen right now, are you raise these two points? >> the crux of the issue of course, are 34 counts of falsified business records. they have to indeed prove what you just talked about. in terms of falsified records. but that weisselberg document laying out the $420,000 reimbursement, $35,000 a month the defense tried to suggest that this was not as damaging as you suggest, because michael cohen padded part of the expenses. he lied about what was owed to him from the polling in company or that he submitted falsified documents, or perhaps even more importantly, that allen weisselberg's absence is a huge seed, a reasonable doubt how should the jury have seen that? >> okay. let's just be simple. i'm sorry. i went on too long, laura, my apologies. $130,000 is written on that document multiplied by two to make michael whole for income taxes, $130,000. the jury has already concluded, in my opinion, was to pay stormy daniels to be quiet? it was not about legal fees. so has the defense explain the $130,000 number on the weisselberg notes as to him being absent everybody on that jury knows how close weisselberg and mr. trump were the defense does not deny that mr. weisselberg chose not to testify. he is in prison for perjury because he is so close to mr. trump, that will be the jury's fair inference, and that's up to the jury to decide and respect that. but the one 30 i would repeat to lord, nobody can say that $130,000 was for legal fees unless the defense can say that and persuade the jury that $130,000 paid to stormy daniels to keep her quiet, was for legal fees. that's evidenced beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion donald trump's guilt. >> lady, was i don't suppose you've had a chance to speak with michael cohen at all about how he views the way he was characterized in this trial very, very briefly. >> no, i haven't i've deliberately left michel alone. it's been a very difficult time for him to hear the word liar, liar, liar, liar. when it says if he's the one that is on trial, i believe that the prosecution had it exactly right when they defense tried to turn this into a trial about michael cohen, whereas the fact is the fact is and it's an irrefutable fact that michael cohen is reading a book as a narrator confirming documents that speak for themselves. you cannot say someone has a liar when they're reading a book, confirming a narrative that's what the prosecution said today. and i think they lay david. >> thank you so much for joining. thanks for speaking with you again. thank you so much. thanks for joining me. now, former federal prosecutor, at least i'm sensing a little commentator and former trump attorney tim parlatore. cnn legal analyst, karen friedman, agnifilo, and karen as counsel for a firm that represents michael cohen, but she does not have any contact with him specifically, she does not work on his case. also, horn federal prosecutor gene rossi is here and law enforcement reporter for the washington post, devlin barrett, who was in court today. i'll begin with you, devlin, because to land is 0.1. he talked about political motive, political motivation is being the most important aspect of this case, which of course speaks to what was the incentive behind paying off stormy daniel's. the other part was that michael cohen was in the words of the prosecution been a deflection focusing on him was trying to deflect away from the attention of what the underlying crimes where i want to know how this was reading in the courtroom. we weren't able to watch the presentation by either council. was it the utricle where they subdued? tell me about their mannerisms in delivering their closings. >> yeah. i wouldn't say any of it was subdued. i think todd blanche, the defense lawyer, got a little more heated and a little more emotional at times calling michael cohen as a liar, a perjure, and essentially saying he he's he's the one thing he's quicksand to a case you cannot build anything on it. >> the prosecutor was a little different. he was also emotional at times, but he was more biting and controlled and how he delivered his lines there was there were a couple of moments where he made specific points about cohen or i noticed one of the jurors was nodding along an agreement and i thought that was interesting that he seemed to have at least the agreement and endorsement a little bit of one juror but overall, look, were in some ways where the same exact place we started with, right? if you believe the papers, you're probably leaning toward conviction. if you have serious concerns about michael cohen, you're probably not leaning toward conviction. that was the argument that was laid out by both sides. they're both just coming out the same facts from completely different ends are really important. >> four, i want to bring in my panel into the room as well, because when you talk about the way the defense began, of course, in new york, it might it's very different than what happens in television. we're talking about this, this morning. the defense goes first for their closing arguments and the prosecution has the last word, if it were federal court, it would be the prosecution having the first byte, then the defense, and then a rebuttal trump was angry about this, knowing that he was going to not have the final word here, but they the defense wanted to talk about that at quicksand argument that this entire case rises and falls with michael cohen. and if that's the case that the prosecution has not met their burden where they affective i think that they were effective in that. i think that there was a lot of extra stuff that they could have left out, but in making the point that michael cohen is the linchpin for this and really focusing in on the meeting the alleged meeting between trump weisselberg and cohen that's the one piece of this case that is a necessary element that there's no documentation for and they've corroborated they're going to tell you they have the notes and the notes. >> the notes absolutely. corroborate a meeting between al weisselberg. am i good call but they don't corroborate whether trump is there, whether trump was informed whether trump agreed. and the only way that you put donald trump in the room is michael cohen's board otherwise, you definitely have an agreement between michael collin allen weisselberg. >> them are defense sorry about that. >> we just saw on the screen. was notes from mips, mr. mcconney, who is on the right. these are notes that he took referencing his conversaon with allen weisselberg. they both add up, although it is chicken scratch, karen, they both add up to $420,000 is the amount of money to repay. we know from the testimony that prior this was a padded amount for michael cohen from that pole pulling entity to try to buttress the credibility of trump. but when you look at the fact that connecting the dots, there has been a lot of information about michael cohen, about allen weisselberg. was there enough from the defense's perspective to connect donald trump? >> look, i think it's very there's definitely argument to be made on the defense. sayyed, that there are weaknesses in the case, that the only thing placing donald trump in the room is michael cohen. and how can you trust? to his worried that there's yes, there are phone calls between cohen and trump and yes, there are other things, meetings between them, but to know the content or the substance of it, you have to rely on michael cohen and i think the problem i had with the defense summation was you didn't get to that until the very end. that he spent so much time on things that i thought were irrelevant, like whether or not they're whether or not trump had an affair with stormy daniels. what does have to do with anything that he there was a payoff. right? there was a hush money pay off whether it's because they don't actually have to prove whether that was true, just that there was an incentive to pay her exactly. >> and so i thought that was just strange because i don't think anyone on the planet believes that they did that. donald trump is paying $130,000 grossed up times three because there's a photo of donald trump on a golf course we're standing next to stormy daniels. i think the whole world believes. so. why are you even making that argument when you don't need to? and i thought the defense summation spent a lot of time on things like that that they really did not need to argue about. another thing they said was was there's no crime. well, there's definitely a crime. but if our the defense attorney, i'd say but michael cohen committed it, maybe even allen weisselberg committed it. donald trump had nothing to do with it, right? so they were just i just kinda thought i don't really understand why they're going doing the strategy they did at the end, i thought they did well and argued what they needed to argue about cohen and there's a lot you can argue about cohen, but they didn't get to that till the variance. oh, they did get you at the end was to say that you cannot send him to prison you cannot connect on michael cohen's. we're at that gotten objection. it should have many that you cannot send somebody to prison. you cannot make somebody based upon the words michael cohen. now, elise, todd blanche is a former prosecutor. >> he knows full well, the inappropriateness of that comment because it's not the job of the jurors to decide a sentence. >> what did you make of that moment? >> yeah, that was highly improper and having that objection sustained was obviously correct by judge merchan pattern, jury instructions have wording to the effect of what you just said, which it is not for the jury to consider punishment that is for the court todd blanche knows that this was not a slip of the tongue. he knew what he was doing. yes, judge. more sean, give a curative instruction to the jury, but it's like a tube of toothpaste once it's been it's out of the tube. you can't put it back in and the jury heard it and yes, he was a former federal prosecutor and he knows that. so he he knew what fact it would have on the jury and now they're going to think, oh geez, well, i might have been convinced, but he could go to prison for this and maybe they don't even realize how influenced they have become. but it's definitely a possibility. so he knew what he was doing and it's unfortunate for the prosecution really, you've been on both sides of the courtroom would you was it improper for this defense council du in this way, number one and two? what do you think his motivation was? was it trying to suggest as a leases is articulating here that it was about the fear of a juror feeling nervous or was it politics as well? >> i think it was politics and i think donald trump may have been a little bit behind this was it improper absolutely. and i'm not i wouldn't be surprised if the judge makes a referral, a bar council, really, i had done that and eastern district of virginia, i would have been cuffed and every attorney knows this. but here's the mistake that todd blanche made. his thinking a jury is going to be affected by this. i disagree with anybody who says there'll be affected with all due respect there are two attorneys on that jury, and those who to attorneys probably haven't done criminal navy, but they know that you cannot mention that a person will go to prison if you find them guilty. so just like calling costello was the last witness they overplayed their hand and i think they offended the two attorneys may be more that are on that jury, but is it improper to do what he did? yes. >> they maybe on the one hand, if it had been referencing a cooperating witness about what they are testifying to and why they were not going to have a penalty. but imagine a death penalty case instead of the jurors thinking about the burden of proof, are now thinking about what decision they will make that might have an impact on other person's life. >> this is part of the reason people are objecting and rightfully so standby. >> i remark come right back. there's next a marathon mike i'm blinking a marathon of nearly five hours for the prosecution's closing arguments and they put a lot of focus on a key witness and it wasn't michael cohen. it was hope hicks why they hope her testimony was the nail on the kopan plus robert de niro's appearance on the mean streets that sayyed the manhattan courthouse and guess, there was talking to him donald trump wants to destroy not only the city but the country, and eventually destroy the world still trying to find a cheaper price for that hotel. i'm so close. >> just use trivago trivago compares hotel prices from hundreds of sites instantly. >> well, we could say $50 a night hotel, trivago borrowing from the start was incredibly simple. >> the interest rates were incredibly attractive going through the process, took just a couple of minutes the approval process was basically instantaneous, man, i got the money within a few days for 13 million americans were affected. my identity theft in 2022, and the threats are more than you realize if you're a victim of identity theft, lifelong works to fix it on your behalf backed by the million dollar protection package, enroll. now if you know luxury it's not just award-winning it's rewarding south for mattresses supports all types of sleepers with verbal steel coils and plush organic gun luxury use handcrafted in american family victories in broad directly to you with our free in-home white glove delivery service, which is why over 90% of customers would recommend saada to friends it's an family. saada luxury mattresses made affordable. >> as your advisor, create a portfolio based only on your age and risk tolerance. >> that's simply not good enough. >> they create a planning, our private wealth managers learn about you first, don't settle for a standard portfolio book. you're free meeting today at creative planning.com centrum. >> it scientifically formulated to help you take charge of your home. central gives everybody a healthy foundations supporting your metabolism you did it plus tries centrum silver.