Up, ted cruz is On Fox Defending Trump by saying the opposite. Theres no person on planet earth that believes donald trump has been sell celebate all of his life. Thats not news. We have a lot on Donald Trumps criminal Hush Money Trial. What a week it has been. Stormy daniels wrapping up testimony with a contentious and bizarre crossexamination from trumps legal term. Well get expert legal analysis on that and what we can expect in court today because its not over yet. Plus, we have reaction from capitol hill to President Bidens threat to withhold some Weapons Shipments to israel over its possible invasion of rafah. More republicans are krilt criticizing the president and hes facing backlash from democrats. And Kevin Mccarthy is having a hard time coping with the fact that mike johnson did something he could not. Well show you mccarthys dig at his successor. It seems, i dont know, not okay, will legal, good morning, and welcome to morning joe. Its friday, may 10th. With us we have the host of way too early, White House Bureau chief at politico, jonathan lemire, and former aide to the george w. Bush white house and state department, elise jordan, and, willie, we end this week, i guess the way we began it, i mean, its a really bad pun but a stormy week in court. Truly for the former president. What can i say. And especially stormy yesterday, as Stormy Daniels was combative as she was grilled about the details of her story, the her account of what she says happened in 2006. A donald trump Hush Money Criminal Trial picks up later this morning, a day after Stormy Daniels finished taking the stand, testifying for more than seven hours over a twoday period. The defense tried to poke holes in daniels credibility, accusing her of extortion, rehearsing her testimony and changing her story over the years, all of Which Daniels denied, going toe to toe with the Defense Attorney. Daniels said if she were making up her sexual encounter with trump, she would have written a much better story. Also during crossexamination, daniels testified she never spoke to trump about the 130,000 Hush Money Payment she received and had no knowledge of whether trump was aware of or involved in that transaction. When pressed, daniels noted she did not negotiate directly with cohen but that her lawyer at the time, Keith Davidson does. Judge juan merchan denied a request for a mistrial from trumps lawyers. Trump attorney Todd Blanche ClaimsStormy Daniels testimony describing her alleged encounter with trump was unfairly prejudicial. But the judge ruled they asserted in their Opening Statement no sex occurred, putting the jury in the position of choosing who to believe. Lets bring in former litigator, and msnbc Legal Correspondent, lisa rubin, and Msnbc Legal Analyst, danny cevallos, good morning to you both. Lisa, ill start with you. Down at the courthouse again yesterday, you were there. Take us inside the room because just reading through this transcript, watching how combative it appeared to be, how Stormy Daniels held her own and held her ground as Defense Attorneys tried to shred her credibility, poke holes in her story. What were your take aways yesterday . Stormy daniels is the rare witness whos better on crossexamination than she is on direct, willie. She really held her ground. Thats an understatement against a withering attack by the defense. One of the things that i think is interesting about yelleds cross is that as our colleague Vaughn Hillyard observed yesterday, what they didnt attack her for. Really the core of her story about her sexual encounter with donald trump was not among the things that they tried to peel away or attack. They asked her, for example, for seven pages in the transcript to clarify whether they did or did not have dinner. They also tried to make her say that her story about whether she walked to dinner was or was not inconsistent. But the core of the story remained in tact, and the most that Susan Necheles did was said that it was incredulous, that Stormy Daniels acting in 150 to 200, would be scared or surprised to come out of the bathroom and find donald trump on the bed for her. Stormy daniels said, look, if it was my husband, but to open that Bathroom Door and to find donald trump lying on the bed for me at 60 years old, more than twice my age, and much larger than me, yeah, that was surprising to me. And so the implication that they were trying to make throughout the day that because Stormy Daniels has been an exotic dancer or adult film actor, that she should have seen this coming and indeed would not have been shocked by it, i think fell flat during the day. That having been said, they did poke a little bit, you know, here and there at the margins. They definitely exposed some inconsistencies, but were also talking about a story that happened 18 years ago, and as a witness processes the story over time as we change culturally, too, its no surprise that maybe the Stormy Daniels of 2024 processing what happened in 2006 sees those events differently. Its impossible to put yourself back in the position that you would have been in the fall of 2016 in telling that story. 7 1 2 hours or so of testimony from Stormy Daniels over the couple of days, truly you have to stop and consider the surreal, historic nature of it, a porn actress sitting across from the former president of the United States making accusations while hes in the middle of a president ial campaign, by the way, but from your point of view, from where youre sitting, at the end of the day, what kind of witness was Stormy Daniels for the prosecution . Unnecessary. Stormy daniels in my view represents an unnecessary risk for the prosecution. Heres why. I cant think of any piece of evidence that they got from Stormy Daniels on the prosecution that they couldnt have gotten or didnt already get from other witnesses. The transaction from Cohen To Daniels was established through other witnesses, including Keith Davidson, her former lawyer. To the extent that the value of the story increased as the election approached, we have heard that evidence from other witnesses. Look, Stormy Daniels was about context, and thats true. But when you think about all the other witnesses, Madeleine Westerhout, hope hicks, people with credibility, if you could get that evidence from them, why risk Stormy Daniels. You saw in Stormy Daniels a request for a mistrial which was going to be denied, but in my view the first major appealable issue you might see at the appellate division. If the prosecution gets a conviction and the case comes back in two years, and its overturned, the conviction, the prosecution is going to ask was it worth it. The testimony given my Stormy Daniels, especially if they could have gotten the information somewhere else. Im in the minority, i dont think Stormy Daniels performed particularly well on crossexamination. Shes one of those witnesses that just decided i am not going to give a yes or no answer because i know thats what the cross examining attorney wants. She fought back at every turn, and yes, to some extent, did she zing donald trump and the cross examining attorney, Susan Necheles, yes, but at the same time, witnesses who refuse to answer yes or no, refuse to give an inch, sometimes juries see them as concealing things, and thats what Stormy Daniels did. It may have played well with the jury, it might not as well. Im going to push back on this because im curious what you think of the fact that it would be obvious that the defense would try and undermine her credibility, really try and, you know, put a frame around the incredulousness of her story, and who else would have the information like what was in his toiletry kit or other things that would prove that there was a transaction for sex. How else would they do that . Is there a different route she would take . She would make that connection. Were mostly on the same page. The point to be made is that the testimony could have been we had sex, and i have heard that argument. Its a fair argument that all of those details are important to establish that this happened, and judge merchan did point out that in their opening, the defense said, they didnt have to say this, that there was no sex. Arguably, they opened the door to those details. But, again, the proof is really in the fact that this is the first request for a mistrial. And the point, judge merchan said we got into detail we didnt need to get into it. Its really not even me. Its judge merchan himself, expressed doubt. Its very rare for a judge on his own to say, hey, you know what, some of that testimony, it went a little too far. So if judge merchan is saying that, they have it on the record, and you Better Believe when they take that to the appellate division, theyre going to take that portion of the transcript and put it right in front to have the judges and make their argument. I go back to the fact that, yes, you can say that the detail helped with the context. Yes, he used old spice and had the satin pajamas, that helps show that shes credible. The defense pointed out, this is not a Sexual Assault case. This is a false entries and Business Records and some other crime that were not entirely sure what it is that is being appealed. But its not a sex assault case, and even Justice Merchan acknowledged that they may have a point, not enough for a mistrial, but theres a point to be made there. The judge rejected their request for a mistrial and rejected the gag order. He kept it in place. Lisa, do you agree that Stormy Daniels was an unnecessary risk, and talk about who else we saw yesterday, madeline wester house. Lets start with whether i agree with danny, i agree that she was an unnecessary witness. I also think when youre thinking about this case writ large, there are two parts of it, the falsification of Business Records and the underlying crime that donald trump was allegedly trying to conceal, and the prosecution has made clear at this point that thats a conspiracy to promote his own election through unlawful means. On the back end, the evidence of trumps own involvement is less direct than it is on the front end. Youve got a lot of people talking about his involvement in the conspiracy. Very few who can talk about his direct participation and the cover up of that crime. Michael cohen being the only one to come to trial and say that. Youve got to compensate by showing he had a motive to do it, and that, plus the circumstantial evidence of his involvement to take you over the line. I would guess that what the prosecution is trying to do with Stormy Daniels here is show because her story was so credible. Because she remembers all of these messy details, he absolutely had the motive to work with Michael Cohen and david pecker to ensure the story never saw the light of day and therefore cover that up through the Business Records falsification that we have seen the direct evidence of. In terms of Madeleine Westerhout, she was in many respects a mixed bag. She was a terrific Character Witness for donald trump, a man she really loves and to whom she feels a great amount of gratitude. She could not have been more ef ef fusive. She presented him with the checks to sign. She said he Read Everything before he signed it, and then she was presented with some evidence showing how careful trump was about his money, including an email with rhona graff about whether or not donald trump wanted to buy a 600 tiffany frame to put a picture of his mother in. Rhona graff saying you ask him. Managerial, tight fisted and the fact that he signed nine checks for 35,000, this is a man who knew what he was doing and wanted to do it. So Stormy Daniels, a mixed bag as to what the prosecution got out of it. The next big event will be Michael Cohen. How soon do you predict hell go on the stand, and what are the risks and rewards of having him come and testify . You want to take this one . Youre better at predicting for sure. At this point, elise, we have seen a lot of the witnesses that we expect. In looking at a count down list, whos left, there arent that many to hear from. I would expect well hear from Michael Cohen relatively soon perhaps as soon as next week. In terms of what they hope to get from him. Michael cohen is the one witness who sees the story from start to finish, the formation of the conspiracy in August Of 2017 to the very end of the Repayment Scheme in december of 2017. So they need Michael Cohen to thread it together. That having been said, think of Michael Cohen as an earthquake damaged building around which the d. A. Has built a lot of scaffolding in the form of documentary evidence. We have seen texts, emails, Bank Statements, we have seen so much evidence, including excerpts from books he wrote, attack attack attack, never trump anyone, manage your own money. All of those things devastating. I predict as soon as today, we will soon what is, i think, the best evidence of all, three tweets from may of 2018 where donald trump essentially confesses to the Business Records crime by saying, yeah, i repaid Michael Cohen, and theres nothing wrong with that. That will be devastating. Michael cohen is the narrator, count on him to come in and be a summary witness. Lets take the other side of this, where are the problems with Michael Cohen . Michael cohen has huge problems and i predict that all the pushback you heard from Stormy Daniels, the inability to answer yes or no and fight on everything leading question, youre going to see that doubly with Michael Cohen. He used to be a lawyer. He understands what leading questions are. This is his Moment In The Sun, just like it was for Stormy Daniels, a Good Opportunity to be in the spotlight, which he enjoys. I expect that he is going to fight Tooth And Nail on crossexamination, which by the way doesnt always work, when you fight with a cross examining attorney, maybe its great for headlines. Maybe we perceive it outside the courthouse as taking a swing at the defense, but in court, it doesnt always play that well. In terms of timing, i actually think well see Michael Cohen sooner than later, just thinking about this as a Defense Attorney that i think the prosecution has done well is move quickly. When youre a defense counsel, thats disorienting, especially when in this case you dont have a solid witness list and you dont know whos next, it can throw you off. If the prosecution moves quickly enough, i didnt ask all the questions i wanted to ask. I wasnt ready for the witness, and it can create chaos at the defense table. I think thats something they have done strategically. I dont know if its intentional, but it feels that way, by being efficient, you keep the defense on their heels, and i think that may be whats going on here. Ill just say, as a watcher, it was disorienting, it was like, wow, wow, they just keep bringing them in. So, lisa, ill ask you this, and im wondering if it backs up dannys point about stormy. There was word yesterday that Karen Mcdougal would not be brought to the stand. Is that related at all to stormys very no. And ill tell you why and talk about the speed of the trial. The reason Karen Mcdougal isnt coming in is because she is unnecessary. Shes part of the conspiracy but when were talking about the falsification of Business Records, the Karen Mcdougal payment has nothing to do with that. Falsification of Business Records