Trial. The prosecution star witness, Michael Cohen, back on the stand. Todays burning question, will cohen keep his cool when trumps lawyers begin what could be an intense Cross Examination, which could start any time today. Could his trademark temper flare under pressure . Yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse for us. Yasmin, take us inside right now. Whats happening . Reporter yeah, a lot happening so far, right . Were 30 minutes into this thing. We already got a lot. Were getting to the crux of this whole thing. Yesterday we heard a lot of incredible testimony from Michael Cohen. We got to the intent as to why essentially donald trump would have wanted to pay off Stormy Daniels. We talked about the january 16th and or 17th meeting, Michael Cohen is unclear about the date in which donald trump, Allen Weisselberg, Michael Cohen were in the room in trump tower saying were going to say Legal Services rendered, paying you monthly, 35,000 a month per the math done by Allen Weisselberg on the First RepublicBank Evidence admitted into testimony yesterday. Now, were getting to the crux, guys. I want to read for you a couple of parts of things that have happened so far this morning, talking about the checks and the invoices and the ledgers specifically. Lets talk numbers for a moment, just to remind folks before i get into this, we got 34 counts here, right, under the original indictment, 12 counts when it comes to ledgers, 11 counts with invoices, 11 counts with checks. Reminder, this is all about falsifying Business Records. It is not about paying off Stormy Daniels. It is not about allegedly having sex with Stormy Daniels in 2006, it is all about saying Legal Services rendered and falsifying those Business Records and repaying Michael Cohen. Some exchanges here, guys, just to bring you up to date, what is happening inside the courtroom this morning, hoffinger saying, where do the discussion take place on February 8th Of 2017 . And he said, the conversation took place in the white house. They go on, i was sitting with President Trump, and he asked me if i was okay, he asked me if i needed money and i said, all good, he said i can get a check, i said, no, im okay. And he said, okay, make sure you deal with allen. Was the invoice for any services you had rendered for those two months . No, maam. And for Services Rendered, was that a truthful statement . No, maam. What was the true purpose . The reimbursement of hush money and red finch. 50,000 went to red finch. 130,000 went to Stormy Daniels. 60,000 in bonuses, the rest of the money adding up to 420,000 was grossing up Michael Cohen to cover his taxes for this payment. Was this invoice a false record . Yes, maam. Were any of the invoices you created for Services Rendered pursuant to a Retainer Agreement . Cohen says, no, maam. They were for reimbursement. This is getting to the crux of this whole thing. Falsifying Business Records. This is where they not only talk about the fallout in 2017, but then also were going to get into Michael Cohen, lying under oath, and being a convicted felon. The prosecution is going to have to cover this, understanding that is what the defense is going to go for in cross. Okay, keep us posted, Yasmin Vossoughian, thank you for bringing us the latest from the courtroom. I want to bring in our legal panel here for the next couple of hours, msnbc legal analyst and criminal Defense Attorney danny cevallos, former assistant new York Attorney general adam pollock, and former federal prosecutor jessica roth. So, danny, what is your reaaction to what is going on so far and why the decision by the prosecution to go in on every single one of these checks . They need to go through each one of these checks because these are the documents. These are the documents that presumably were falsified and so they have to introduce all of these documents and they especially have to introduce them with Michael Cohen, because Michael Cohen is a witness that is fraught with risk because of his credibility problems. So, you need to support his testimony with documents. It is why they called him near to the end. Not for a moment of high drama, but instead because they needed to introduce all of these other witnesses, documents, and evidence to presupport Michael Cohen, when he inevitably gets lambasted on Cross Examination for all of his inconsistencies and his lies and his motivational lies. So they introduce after all, this is a documents case. This is about making false entries in Business Records which are documents and now were seeing the documents. But the jury is already hearing testimony that they heard before. Because it has been woven in with the testimony of other people. The bookkeepers, the other people involved in this case. So, this is the prosecution building their case, brick by brick. And, of course, the defense is going to try and topple it over by attacking cohens credibility. And the prosecutions vision is that when the smoke clears and Michael Cohen has been savaged on Cross Examination, they can still say in closing to the jury, hey, you may have found Michael Cohen to be a, well, maybe a shadowy figure at best, but his testimony was consistent with all the other people who are very believable and the documents. The documents dont lie. Thats basically going to be their closing. You heard it here first. The jury has seen all of these documents before as well. They have already shown them all of the checks, the check stubs, the invoices that were falsely labeled as legal payments, according to the prosecution. But they have cohen here now saying, well, being asked, was this payment for Services Rendered for the month of march . Cohen saying no, maam. Hoffinger, was that invoice false . Cohen, yes. Did you receive this check in response to that false invoice . Cohen, i did. And all the while the jury is listening but our reporting is theyre showing no emotion. So, this might not be an emotional or high drama moment for the jury. But this is actually a really crucial moment for the prosecutions case. In the Opening Statements, the defense said these were payments made to trumps lawyer for Legal Services. That is patently false. The evidence has confirmed with witness after witness that these payments were not for Legal Services, these payments that the jury might not be rapt attention, but the payments for the nda, these payments were for the hush money. This was the first witness as danny said, it all has been woven through, this is the first witness who said trump knew what these payments were for. Very crucial testimony in a case against donald trump. Interesting how the process of building as danny would call it this brick by brick and each and every one of these payments and each and every one of these checks, theyre asking cohen, hoffinger, was this a false invoice for records previously steeded . Yes, maam. Did you receive this check as a result of false invoices . Check and stub, yes, over and over, these brick by brick. But it is to protect what is coming next . Well, this really is the foundation of the case. We think about the wall that theyre building. Every count in the indictment is based on one of these documents. This is one of the false records maintained in the books of the Trump Organization that gives the basis for each of these charges. Thats why as were going through this Laborious Process With Cohen to establish that each one of these entries was false. The records came in earlier in the trials through the book keepers through the Trump Organization who awe thent kant authenticated them as the books of the Trump Organization. It is critical. As adam was saying, linking trump to this Falsification Scheme this is what is absolutely critical to come through, through cohens testimony. As this critical testimony is taking place, there is some interesting developments outside the courtroom. Lets go back to yasmin. Tell us what youre learning and what were now hearing from the House Speaker who showed up. Reporter so im not able to hear exactly what speaker johnson is saying right now. Im looking over in my over my left, in the direction in front of me, guys, because speaker johnson is having a press conference, 50 or 60 feet away from where im standing. Hes here along with a lot of other supporters of the former president. We have doug burgum, vivek ramaswamy, cory mills, representative Byron Daniels as well. We have seen over the last couple of days, malliotakis was here yesterday, Tommy Tuberville was here yesterday as well, along with jd vance and Holding Press Conferences in this kind of Courtyard Area in front of me where protesters usually gather throughout the day. There has been not many protesters, but protesters to say the least. And now speaker johnson is speaking specifically about what is happening inside court today. Obviously coming on a day that is fairly significant for the trial because the fact Michael Cohen, the quote, unquote star witness of the entire trial is testifying on his second day, likely to go on throughout the week, especially with Cross Examination, which is going to be a very difficult day for Michael Cohen on the witness stand. Nonetheless, speaker johnson certainly making news today coming up here to new york amidst all that is happening in washington to show his support for the former president of the United States and the republican presumptive nominee for president this go round as well. Very anxious to hear exactly what it is, though, hes saying right now. As we get that in, well certainly bring it to you guys. And, danny, wondering about the image of the speaker of the House Of Representatives speaking outside the courthouse in the courtroom with donald trump, also his son, were just hearing about even some of the folks who ran against trump in the primaries. Clearly there is a Public Affairs aspect to this and a political side to it. But inside the courtroom, do the jury members see this and how do they deal with that . They may see some of the hubbub when they leave or come in, in the morning. They see who is in the courtroom, for sure. And then there is the question, do they know who is in the courtroom . Yes, People Like Us are watching for these figures all the time. But it is possible that these jury members may not recognize the speaker of the house right away. It is possible. Hes a household name. He may not be an every household name. Does that affect them . Sure. Thats why we always wanted attorneys on both sides whether youre a prosecutor or defense, you want people there to support your client or the government. It happens. And sometimes it is just mom, dad, maybe some relatives, and sometimes it is the speaker of the house supporting the defendant. And, of course, im willing to bet that nobody here has any personal experience with a defendant having the speaker of the house come in to support them. Were in new ground here when it comes to, you know, is it improper influence of the jury . No. People can come show their support. But, it is pretty compelling stuff when you have major figures. It is not the first time famous people have come to a trial in support of a defendant or in support of the prosecution. It happens. It happened before. Just maybe not on this political level. As far as the legal aspect of all of this, theyre going outside the courtroom, tweeting from inside the courtroom sometimes like we saw yesterday with senator jd vance, previously it was rick scott in the courtroom, another senator who had come outside and ultimately attacked the witnesses. Last week Stormy Daniels. This week it is Michael Cohen. These surrogates of trump essentially have gone after the judges daughter. These are all off limits to trump through the gag order, right . Do you see, jessica, this is his way of getting around that gag order . It is really intriguing as a development. Im pretty sure the orders are that trump cannot only not make these kind of statements himself, but cant cause others to do so. It is in the order. If the judge finds that trump is orchestrating these statements by people on his behalf, then i think the judge is going to come down very hard on donald trump. And the question is, is it going to be clear enough that hes coordinating it or is it plausible these people are doing it on their own . And would the judge Say Something similar to what he said to Michael Cohen, the judge is asking you, witnesses, or supporters of donald trump, to refrain from making these kinds of statements that could have could impair the integrity of the trial. Well see how this develops. This is the newest twist on trump trying to get his political supporters to do his work on his behalf. It seems like thats whats happening. Jessica was talking about the need by the prosecution to link trump to this scheme. And this Building Brick By brick, is this getting to that . In other words, is there enough so far to link trump with the scheme . So, they made important progress, which is they now, through Michael Cohen, directly linked trump to these false payments. The payments were false. The records were false. There is a key part which is missing, which is did trump direct the entry of false records . Because certainly there would have been no problem had they just put records down and said were making Hush Money Payments and recorded the checks, recorded the ledger as Hush Money Payments, nothing illegal about a Hush Money Payment. The key part that is still missing here is whose idea was it to do the coverup in the records, to falsely record the ledger, to falsely record the checks . What does that legally mean . Yes, so, ive been thinking about this over the last couple of days, i think it is a really significant point that adam brings up. As a Defense Attorney throughout the trial, ive been sort of thinking on what would the defense explore during closing. I think this might be something youll see, which is, it may sound hypertechnical, you never know which member might be interested in this argument, which is when all this evidence is in, what you have is documents with Allen Weisselbergs handwriting on them, Michael Cohens invoices. You have people in the Trump Organization who are not the defendant, who are actually making these false entries. If youre out there and thinking, oh, come on, it is obvious he was involved, im with you. I understand. You do have Donald Trumps signature on some of these documents. Right now theyre just putting before the jury this check and a stub and the hoffinger, the prosecutor asking did you receive this check and stub as a result of false invoice . Cohen, yes. And hoffinger points out, whose signature is on the check . Cohen, donald j. Trump. Hoffinger, was that a false description of the check stub . Yes, maam. When you have checks, you cant deny thats Donald Trumps signature on there. Youre thinking as a Defense Attorney, you argue, hey, obviously these are checks. You look at the ledgers, the emails that they have introduced, none of those are between donald trump. Hes not a name on there. Everyone will say, donald trump intentionally doesnt use email for exactly this purpose. Thats a gangster move. Never be on the Text Messmessag never be on the emails, so youre never in trouble. This may be an argument that might carry weight with one or more jurors. The vast majority of them may say, come on, give me a break, hes obviously involved, hes a micromanager, fair point.