good morning. it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera alongside my colleague and friend jose diaz-balart, bringing you special coverage as history unfolds this morning in a new york courthouse. closing arguments now under way in the first criminal trial of a former president. the dramatic final phase of donald trump's hush money case after 21 days in court, 22 witnesses and 80 hours of testimony. >> up first in today's closing arguments, trump's defense team. attorney todd blanche trying to convince a jury that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof in this trial. >> nbc's yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse. also with us, chuck rosenberg, former senior fbi official, daniel leven, former prosecutor, jeremy solante, and jessica roth, former federal prosecutor and professor at cordosa law school. the defense closing is already under way. todd blanche saying to the jury, you should want or expect more than the testimony of michael cohen. what else are we hearing from him? >> reporter: big, big, big day today, guys, to say the least. two and a half hours we're expected to hear from todd blanche when it comes to his closing arguments. his summations. and then followed up by the prosecution, joshua steinglass, who will be leading summations for the prosecution for four to four and a half hours this thing could extend into tomorrow if the jury decides they don't want to stay late. but if they decide they can, in fact, stay late, we could be finishing up closing arguments, summations today and then heading into jury instructions tomorrow and then subsequently deliberations. quickly, ana, before i get into what we're hearing from todd blanche, let me give you a lay of the land. we are hearing from more protesters here than ever before, i would say, about 50 yards from where i'm standing right now, former president trump supporters standing outside in that courtyard area, protesting for in support of donald trump as he faces his destiny really here. his future here in that courtroom behind me. let me walk you through some of what we're hearing from todd blanche and his defense and closing arguments. he began with president trump is innocent, he did not commit any crimes and the d.a. did not achieve the burden of proof, period. he mentioned michael cohen so far, so many times, and we're only about 30 minutes into this thing. as you mentioned, he said, you should want and expect more than the testimony of michael cohen. you should want and expect more than deb tarasoff who told you how she booked invoices and records, something beyond the claims that something happened in 2006. you should demand more than the testimony of keith davidson, remember keith davidson, the attorney for stormy daniels, trying to extort money from president trump in the leadup to the 2016 election. the consequences is simple, we will spend time talking about evidence you saw over the last five weeks, not just what you saw and heard, but what you did not hear as well. he went on to say, you will hear me talk about michael cohen, and that should not surprise you. you cannot convict president trump on the words of michael cohen, keith schiller, dylan howard, allen weisselberg are not here in this trial. michael cohen was the witness they called and the words michael cohen said on the stand matter, they matter. he took an oath and swore to tell you the truth and he told you a number of things on the stand that were lies. pure and simple. again, he has mentioned, guys, michael cohen's name several times so far. expect to be a huge part, obviously, both his name, along with stormy daniels' testimony, a huge part of these closing arguments today. and i am not surprised, this is something we anticipated as well, that he has brought up and i imagine he'll bring this up again, the absence of some major figures that we did not hear from, allen weisselberg specifically, keith schiller as well. >> yasmin, fascinating to go back into the courtroom where blanche continues his statement today. let me just take you in there for just a second, because blanche is just now saying there is no dispute, that in 2017, again, establishing, according to blanche, that cohen had -- was the personal attorney to donald trump at the time. he says, there is no dispute that in 2017 there was an attorney/client relationship between cohen and president trump. nobody has told you different. he, meaning mr. cohen, was president trump's personal lawyer, period. no one disputes that mr. cohen was president trump's personal lawyer in 2017. what makes more sense, blanche asks? president trump paying him $35,000 pursuant to an agreement or the version that michael cohen came in here and told you that i was going to go work for free and in the back of my head, i would work for free and make a lot of money as a consultant. there is a reason why blanche is saying, there is a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one and that's certainly the case here. that story mr. cohen told you on that witness stand is not true. lying or not true, a statement that we're hearing over and over again this morning by blanche. >> and really putting it all on the credibility of michael cohen, it sounds like. chuck, what do you make of the defense closing arguments so far? >> i don't mean this as a criticism, but it is standard. we have two very good defense attorneys right here at this table, jeremy and duncan. i imagine either of them could walk down to the courthouse right now, and give the same closing argument that mr. blanche is giving. you would proclaim that mr. trump is innocent, you would claim that mr. cohen is a creep and can't be trusted and tell the jury that the government hasn't met its burden of proof. this is standard defense fare. not a criticism, just an observation. >> and the problem with what i think he's saying is that it is just the lie by the evidence. michael cohen, there is no retainer agreement, no invoices. michael cohen made $4 million in that year, 2017, he charged, i think he said he worked ten hours for mr. trump while he was his personal assistant, he was doing this so he can grift on other clients. there is no evidence he was actually billing any hours as mr. trump's personal attorney and this number $35,000 is not just a magic number pulled out of nowhere, there is -- there are two exhibits, exhibit 35 and exhibit 36 in this trial, which have allen weisselberg's handwriting all over it. and that is the calculation of how you get to the $35,000. it is not a magic number. >> it is really the first building block of this process for the defense. but is that first building block pretty much standard? >> it is pretty much standard and i appreciate chuck saying we're good defense attorneys. duncan, you're a good defense attorney. all joking aside, you know, what i think they did was a little bit dangerous. it started off blanche saying, we want or expect more than michael cohen, he just opened that door for the prosecution to hammer him and what i mean by that is you know what, you deserve more than michael cohen and guess what, you got more than michael cohen because you got mr. pecker, you got hope hicks, you got -- as you said, the exhibits 35 and 36, handwritten notes by weisselberg, what else did you get? the call logs. you have so much. this is not the michael cohen show, despite the fact that absolutely unequivocally that's the endgame for the defense. if you don't like michael cohen, you don't want him to date your sister, don't want him to be your neighbor, but that's not what this is about. i may not like him either, but he's telling you the truth and he got eviscerated and knew he would do that and still came here and there is more than michael cohen. they opened this door, if i'm the prosecution, i'm frothing a little bit, ready to respond. >> here is how he's continuing on with his closing argument. he says, there is no evidence president trump knew anything about this voucher system, anything, and i don't know how the government will address that. and if they read you quotes from a book a decade earlier, you should be suspicious. that's a red flag, blanche says. blanche goes on to say, something he wrote when a book assisted by ghost writers, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not include passages from a book decades earlier. there is a problem in the proof. what do you make of that and do you think that's a strong argument that trump didn't know anything about these particular documents in question, and you can't rely on what he has said about how he looks at finances from a decade earlier? >> so i think the weakest part of the prosecution's case thus far is connecting trump to the falsification of the records. i think that's the part where they're most dependent on the credibility of michael cohen's testimony, he was in the room with donald trump talking about this falsification scheme. according to michael cohen, allen weisselberg was there too, but the jury hasn't heard from allen weisselberg. >> which they pointed out in the closing arguments. they said, where was dylan howard, where was keith schiller, where was allen weisselberg. >> and what the prosecution is going to do and it has this opportunity to address the jury is to say, you know what, there are a lot of other witnesses the defense didn't mention to you, like hope hicks, and david pecker who corroborate critical aspects of michael cohen's testimony and there are the documents that corroborate michael cohen's testimony, about the falsification scheme. so at the end of the day, there is a very, very small amount of michael cohen's testimony that is not corroborated by documents and other witnesses. and there is lots of circumstantial evidence to corroborate what michael cohen is saying about this particular part of the story. >> but would the prosecution then be able to now address why allen weisselberg is not there? will they be able to say in theirs because allen weisselberg is in rikers and is a totally unreliable guy who is, you know, lied on the stand multiple times is why you didn't hear from him, but you can still look at his handwriting on the documents. >> it is interesting what they're permitted to say. we haven't seen what the judge is going to instruct the jury about the absence of allen weisselberg and what they can argue from it. the prosecution is going to be able to point to the corroborating evidence without the presence of that witness, about allen weisselberg's handwriting, for example, on the records. and i think they'll be limited in what they can say about what the jury could or could not infer from the absence of allen weisselberg on the stand. >> in the time we have, it could be hours that the defense is going to be up. what is the principle point distilled down that the defense has to show? >> that the government failed to meet its burden of proof. >> and it is all about burden of proof? >> it is. it is on the government. it is always on the government. it never shifts to the defense. so, all of these arguments are really tailored to that. you can't trust michael cohen. to jessica's point, there is no good, direct evidence tieing mr. trump to the intentionality required to show that he falsified the records. maybe they would argue that the causation doesn't exist, jose, but it is all really tailored to this notion that the government has failed. the government, of course, i think, my view, has put in a compelling case. that doesn't mean the jury is going to convict. but if you're the prosecutor in this case, you can sit down at the end of the day and say, i called the witnesses i wanted to call, i asked the questions i wanted to ask, i introduced the evidence i wanted to introduce, we have met our burden. and i think you'll hear that sort of pushback in the four and a half hours of closing argument from the defense -- excuse me, from the prosecutor later today. >> and our guidance based on what the both defense lawyers and prosecution told the judge very beginning of trial today is that the defense will take two and a half hours in their closing argument and the prosecution could take four, four and a half hours in their closing arguments. let me read more from what we're hearing inside that courtroom right now as todd blanche, trump's defense attorney, makes his closing argument. he says, the government said this was an elaborate way to cover up a $130,000 payment that is not what the evidence showed. february 14th, 2017, he moves to washington, d.c., all president trump's assets are moved into a trust to avoid a conflict of interest and that went into effect january 20th. they put up some exhibits here showing the transcript, him agreeing these things were in flux during that time period. blanche goes on to say, this was a confusing time for the trump organization, adjustments were being made and it matters because initially they wanted to pay michael cohen out of a trust. blanche, who are don and eric? who are in the courtroom, by the way, today. you all know who they are. they are president trump's sons. they're running the company. and blanche says this is one of the charge documents as they put up another exhibit here that president trump is charged with a felony and if there is a conspiratorial agreement between the three of them to pay michael cohen as a cover-up, this email does not exist. don't tell anybody, it is actually just a payback for the $130,000 nda. then why does the email exhibit? and why do don jr. and eric have to approve it? blanche says, guess who else you don't hear from in this trial? don and eric. is there a suggestion they're part of this scheme? >> matter of fact, yasmin, those two people are in the courtroom this morning. >> reporter: they are. yes. don jr. and eric trump are in the courtroom with tiffany trump as well. the first time i believe she's in the courtroom today. don jr. was here last week. twice last week, i believe, it was. eric has been here throughout the trial on and off along with lara trump as well, eric trump's wife in the courtroom. it is interesting, guys. i think they are drawing attention to the fact that eric trump, don jr. did not appear on the stand. the folks that did not in fact appear on the stand, the whole idea here for the defense is to build doubt in the minds of these jurors and to preempt whatever we're hearing from laura jarrett inside the courtroom right now, to preempt the arguments by the prosecution as they begin their summations after closing arguments wrap with the defense. after the defense is done, they're done. there is no rebuttal from the defense once the prosecution delivers their closing arguments. so everything that is said now is said now. they need to prebut whatever it is they intend to hear from the prosecution here. hence why they're building this timeline and also drawing attention to the fact that to the many individuals that did not, in fact, testify throughout this trial that were key players in this trial. don jr., eric trump, they signed two of the checks before donald trump began signing the checks. 11 checks that were signed. $35,000 each. all throughout the year, 2017. the two that came from the trust, the two initial checks that came from the trust, were signed by don jr. and eric trump. hence why their names were brought to light today and questioning why it is they did not, in fact, take the stand. >> yeah, yasmin, that is something that blanche is really focusing in on. he is saying here, president trump was supposed to pay this out of his personal account because he, cohen, was personal attorney. didn't make sense for the company to pay, so they switched it. and that is the way it is. and it shouldn't surprise you. now, they're showing some of the checks, signed by eric, some signed by trump, donald trump. and blanche is showing the difference. both the checks, he says, were approved by eric and don jr. and president trump did not have anything to do with them. as you know, he signed the remaining checks, the checks don't have any language for the invoice michael cohen sent. they just say retainer. once again, showing the court, blanche, here a separation between what donald trump knew he was signing and why he was signing those checks. >> i want to bring in barbara mcquaid, former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst. barb, as you're listening to how the defense is framing their closing argument right now, what is on your mind? >> well, as chuck said this is standard operating procedure. i think what they're going to do is go step by step through all of the things that could suggest reasonable doubt as to donald trump's knowledge and intent. aside from michael cohen, what is left in the evidence here, and then try to poke holes in all of that. look at this document, look at what this says, look at this email, look at this other thing. i think he's going to be very careful about suggesting the involvement of don jr. and eric because when he says they approved this, does that mean they're part of the conspiracy? part of me said, well, yeah, maybe they were. so, i think he has to be careful there. but i imagine that he will methodically go through each of the 34 documents in this case, tying the proof directly to donald trump. there is standard response from the prosecution will be, you know, something along the lines of, you know, if you cherry pick one piece of evidence here, one piece of evidence there, you might suggest that you're casting some doubt, but, of course, this case isn't about cherry picking one piece of evidence or another, it is about all of the evidence. when you combine all of it, it makes out for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a supervisor i used to work with used to use the analogy of bricks and walls, that the defense wants to show you individual bricks, but the brick is not a wall. when i put the bricks together, i built a wall that is now proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> and, jeremy, what do you make of the throwing don jr. and eric trump into the mix? >> well, part of what is going on here is as they're trying to show the doubt there is the theory you see of admitting what you can't deny and denying what you can't admit. you have to admit there is -- it is not exactly to answer your question, you have to admit donald trump signed the check. you can't deny that. his name is on the checks. you have to admit that. you can't admit the purpose or the background. you have to deny the basis and the intent and the knowledge of what was going on. it is this admitting what you can't deny and denying what you can't admit and the defense will use that to their advantage and say we're missing evidence, there is reasons why these notes are signed off on, a reason why there is no email, a reason why i'm blaming don and eric. at the same time, the prosecution turns around and takes the opposite perspective and say they're admitting it because they have to admit it, but denying why. and why? because they can deny that, but we still have all this corroborated evidence, all these documents and all this testimony that still put it -- keep this in mind. admit what you can't deny and deny what you can't admit. >> blanche is focussing on michael cohen's credibility. saying it is worth remembering that we're going to be talking for just a few minutes about how michael cohen, how the government is going to ask you to convict president trump based on the words of michael cohen. even without mr. cohen, what we just went through, the government can't get by the fact that the invoices were not generated by anyone at the trump organization. they were generated by cohen, sent to trump organization, so he could get paid. jessica, there is the whole aspect of what is illegal and what is not illegal about this. and the focus, i presume, the prosecution, to turn it toward, well there is a secondary crime here. >> right, government h