0:00

Hi, I'm Jonathan Capehart, and I'm excited

0:02

to share some great news. Both

0:05

the Saturday show and the Sunday show

0:07

are available as a podcast. Every

0:10

weekend I look forward to bringing you

0:12

the most important political news and the

0:14

newsmakers who are creating policies that affect

0:16

your life. For me, it's

0:18

all about the conversation. That's

0:20

when news is revealed and understanding begins.

0:23

Search for Saturdays and Sundays with

0:25

Jonathan Capehart and follow. The

0:32

people of New York versus Donald J.

0:35

Trump. I should be in Florida now.

0:37

I should be in a lot of

0:39

different places right now campaigning and I'm

0:41

sitting here. For the first time in

0:43

history, prosecutors lay out a criminal case

0:45

against a former American president to a

0:48

jury. This case is about

0:50

a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 presidential

0:52

election. Tonight, the

0:54

opening statements from the prosecution

0:56

and the defense. And

0:58

the first witness takes the stand. We

1:00

should be expecting a lot more of

1:03

David Packard. Rachel

1:05

Maddow was inside the courtroom to see

1:07

it all. We got a real road map today

1:09

as to how this case is going to go.

1:11

As Donald Trump goes on trial. He

1:14

seemed old and tired and mad. Tonight,

1:20

Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Chris

1:22

Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnell, Alex Wagner,

1:24

Jen Psaki, Stephanie Rule, Katie

1:27

Fang and MSNBC legal experts

1:29

are all here. Special

1:32

coverage of Trump on trial

1:34

begins now. Thank

1:39

you for joining us tonight for this

1:41

special primetime recap of the

1:43

first ever criminal trial of a

1:46

former U.S. president. The first ever

1:48

criminal trial of a major party's

1:50

presumptive nominee as their candidate for

1:52

president. I'm Rachel Maddow here at

1:54

MSNBC headquarters along with Lawrence O'Donnell

1:56

and Chris Hayes and Jen Psaki

1:58

and Katie Fang. We're going to

2:00

be joined tonight by our colleagues Joy

2:02

Reed and Alex Wagner and Stephanie Rule.

2:05

Our legal experts, Andrew Weisbitt and Catherine Christian,

2:08

they're going to be keeping us on the

2:10

straight and narrow. We've got

2:12

Lisa Rubin here tonight and Suzanne Craig of the

2:14

New York Times who are both at the trial

2:16

today. I should say Lisa and Suzanne and Katie

2:19

were all in the overflow room at the trial

2:21

today. I was in the

2:23

actual courtroom, which makes it

2:25

sound like I got the better seat.

2:27

But I'll tell you, there are advantages

2:29

and disadvantages to both ways of sitting in on

2:32

the trial and a lot of them have to do

2:34

with the five senses. We'll talk about

2:36

that a little bit tonight. The

2:38

trial got underway at 9.30 Eastern Time this

2:41

morning. It ran for about three hours before

2:44

breaking early for both the Passover

2:46

holiday and for one juror to

2:48

get to an emergency dentist appointment.

2:50

I hope it went okay. But

2:53

that short day's proceedings nevertheless brought

2:55

us a whole bunch of really important news about

2:58

this case. We got first

3:00

thing, a substantive ruling from Judge

3:02

Juan Marchon about effectively what

3:04

prosecutors are going to be allowed

3:06

to ask Trump if he chooses to

3:08

take the stand in his own defense. Now

3:11

this is something that's called a Sandoval hearing

3:13

that happened at the end of the week

3:15

last week. This was Judge Marchon's ruling

3:17

on that Sandoval

3:20

hearing basically in non-legalese.

3:23

What it is, is if Trump's going to present himself

3:25

as a witness, prosecutors

3:27

will want to call his

3:29

credibility as a witness into question.

3:31

And they'll want to do that

3:34

by telling the jury about bad

3:36

things Trump has done or has

3:38

said, things that would reflect poorly on

3:41

his believability as a witness in this

3:43

proceeding. So prosecutors have to ask the

3:45

judge about that. Prosecutors

3:47

had asked permission to raise 13 different

3:51

bad things about

3:53

former President Trump in front of the

3:55

jury. Judge Marchon ruled today that they

3:57

are allowed to raise six of those

3:59

13 things but not the rest

4:01

of them. Now, is that good

4:03

news or bad news for the prosecution? Good news or bad

4:05

news for the defense? I don't know. We

4:07

will get advice from our legal experts tonight as

4:10

to how much of a win or loss that

4:12

is for either side. But that was right

4:15

out of the gate, a substantive thing about

4:17

how much these jurors will get to hear

4:19

about Trump if he testifies.

4:22

And this is done out of fairness to

4:24

the defense. The defense basically needs to know

4:26

whether it's worth it to put

4:29

Trump on the stand. They can't compel Trump

4:31

to speak. But if he chooses to

4:33

take the stand, they now understand the parameters about

4:35

what he might be asked about. And that

4:37

will help them fairly make a decision about

4:39

whether or not it is a good idea

4:41

for him to actually become a witness in

4:44

his own case. So that happened

4:46

today. That was first. It went

4:48

fast. We also today got opening statements

4:50

from each side today. And each side

4:52

completed their opening statements today. And

4:55

the opening statements, admittedly, I'm

4:57

a dork, but I found them fascinating.

5:00

And they were so different from one

5:02

another. You think of opening statements as

5:04

kind of being a boilerplate thing or something where you

5:06

can expect what they're like. Well, these were two

5:08

totally different ways of doing it.

5:10

The prosecution started. They laid out a dispassionate,

5:14

straightforward, very linear,

5:17

very blunt case. It started

5:19

this way. Mr. Colangelo,

5:21

Matthew Colangelo, prosecutor, good morning,

5:23

your honor. Council, members of the

5:25

jury. This case is about a

5:27

criminal conspiracy and a coverup. The

5:30

defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme

5:32

to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.

5:36

Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy

5:38

by lying in his New York business

5:41

records over and over and over again.

5:43

In June 2015, Donald Trump announced

5:46

his candidacy for president in the 2016 election. A

5:54

few months later, this conspiracy began. So

5:58

that's how it started from the... prosecution

6:00

in their opening. We're going to talk in

6:02

detail about the prosecution's argument, the sort of

6:05

blunt, streamlined, linear nature

6:07

of their case in the way they are

6:09

making it. In total contrast, this

6:12

is the opening of the opening

6:14

statement from the defense,

6:17

Todd Blanche, defense counsel for President

6:19

Trump. Good morning, your honor. Good morning,

6:21

the judge. Good morning, Mr. Blanche.

6:23

President Trump is innocent. President

6:25

Trump did not commit any crimes. The

6:28

Manhattan district attorney's office should never have brought this

6:30

case. You've heard this a few times

6:32

already this morning. You're going to hear it a

6:34

lot more during this trial. The people, the government,

6:37

they have the burden of proof to prove

6:39

President Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

6:41

What that means, as Judge Marchand said

6:43

a few minutes ago, is that President

6:45

Trump is presumed innocent. He

6:47

is cloaked in innocence. And

6:50

that cloak of innocence does not leave

6:52

President Trump today. It doesn't leave him

6:55

at any day during this trial. And

6:57

it won't leave him when you all

6:59

deliberate. You will find that he

7:01

is not guilty. Now, President Trump, you've seen him,

7:04

of course, for years and years and years. You've

7:06

seen him on television. You've seen photos of him.

7:08

You've seen articles written about him. He's in some

7:10

ways larger than life, but he's also here in

7:12

this courtroom doing what any of us would do,

7:15

defending himself. You're going

7:17

to hear me, as I've done already

7:20

today, and others, even witnesses, refer to

7:22

him as President Trump. This

7:24

is a title that he has earned

7:26

because he was our 45th president. We

7:28

will call him President Trump out of respect

7:30

for the office that he held from 2017 to 2021.

7:33

And as everybody knows, it's the office he's running

7:37

for right now. He's the Republican

7:39

nominee. But, and this is important,

7:41

he's not just our former president. He's not just

7:43

Donald Trump that you have seen on TV

7:45

and read about and seen photos of. He's also

7:47

a man. He's a husband. He's

7:50

a father, and he's a person, just

7:52

like you and just like me. What

7:55

the people just did for about 45 minutes is

7:57

present to you what appeared to be a very

8:00

clean, nice story. It

8:02

is not. It is not simple,

8:05

as the people just described. So

8:09

you could see the difference in

8:11

the approach here, right? You think you know what an

8:13

opening statement is? Well, those are both opening statements, but

8:15

they're from different planets. And,

8:18

you know, a good

8:20

defense will always presumably try to make

8:22

it seem like the prosecution's case is

8:24

less straightforward than it seems. The

8:27

defense, after all, just has to inject some

8:30

reasonable doubt as to the

8:32

guilt of the defendant. They don't need to prove him

8:34

innocent. In this case,

8:36

though, Trump's defense is bluntly proclaiming him innocent.

8:38

That was literally the first line of their

8:40

opening statement to the jury. President Trump

8:43

is innocent. To

8:45

make that case, to bolster that case,

8:47

his defense lawyers today, and this surprised

8:49

me as a lay observer of these

8:51

matters, President Trump's defense lawyers today

8:53

found themselves also

8:55

having to make a number

8:57

of supporting claims about Trump's

8:59

behavior around this incident and

9:01

these alleged crimes. And they

9:03

were claims that I

9:07

think outside the courtroom and to those of us

9:09

who are not on the jury observing this case,

9:11

they are claims that will raise a lot of

9:13

eyebrows. I do not know what their effect

9:15

will be on the jury, but

9:17

these things are hard to sell at a, you

9:20

know, on a street corner or in a cocktail

9:22

party or on TV. We'll

9:24

see if the jury buys them claims like these Todd

9:27

Blanche defense counsel quote, when

9:29

he became president in 2017, he

9:31

put up a wall between himself and his

9:34

company. He put his entire company in a

9:36

trust. He did this so that he could

9:38

run the country and he wouldn't have anything

9:40

to do with his company while he

9:42

was president. Is that

9:44

true? Did Donald Trump

9:46

in fact put up a wall between himself

9:48

and his company while he was president? Did

9:50

he have nothing to do with his company

9:53

when he was president? I

9:55

don't know what the jury will think of that claim, but

9:59

I mean, I can't. Pick

10:01

your example. Remember when Mike Pence had

10:03

a meeting in Dublin, Ireland as vice

10:06

president, but the Trump administration

10:08

had him stay on the other

10:10

side of the island, the whole other

10:12

side of the country, hours away from

10:14

his meeting in Dublin, just so he

10:16

could stay at a Trump Gulf property

10:18

while he was there? If

10:22

Vice President Kamala Harris was going to Dublin

10:24

for a meeting right now as

10:26

vice president of the United States, what do you

10:28

think the odds are that she would be staying

10:31

181 miles away from Dublin at Dunbeg? Tell

10:37

me more about the wall between President Trump and

10:39

his company. Anyway,

10:42

President Trump's counsel also claiming to

10:44

the jury today that Trump paid Michael Cohen

10:47

purely for legal services, and

10:50

he definitely didn't pay him as a

10:52

reimbursement for this hush money payment to

10:54

Stormy Daniels, the woman they wanted to keep

10:56

quiet ahead of the election about her claims

10:59

about a sexual relationship with former President Trump.

11:01

They are claiming this really was

11:03

just payment from Trump to Michael

11:05

Cohen for legal services, even

11:07

though they also admitted to the jury today

11:10

that Cohen had been Trump's lawyer for

11:12

years and years and years, and it

11:14

would appear that Cohen was never paid like

11:16

this before in any of the

11:18

other years that he worked for Trump. President

11:21

Trump's defense counsel is also claiming

11:23

that the

11:25

allegations that Stormy Daniels made that she had

11:27

a sexual encounter with Donald Trump was a

11:29

false claim. A false claim is what he

11:31

said to the jury today. You can make

11:33

of that what you will. The

11:36

jury will be expected to believe these things

11:38

because the claim from the defense is that

11:40

Donald Trump is innocent. We

11:44

now know that this is the nature of the defense

11:46

they're going to mount. They may have Trump

11:48

himself testify. They may not. They're

11:50

going to make as much as possible over the

11:52

fact that he's a former president. They're going to

11:55

call him president over and over again in the

11:57

courtroom. They're going to create what appears,

11:59

I think, outside the courtroom to be an

12:01

Earth 2 narrative in which Trump not only

12:04

didn't have sex with Stormy Daniels, Trump had

12:06

nothing to do with his company while he was president. That

12:08

must have been the wall he built. And

12:10

even though he apparently never paid Michael

12:13

Cohen this way before, coincidentally after Michael

12:15

Cohen on his own volition and for

12:17

his own reasons decided to take out

12:19

a home equity line of credit in

12:21

order to pay a porn star that

12:23

he himself never met and never had

12:25

sex with, coincidentally after Michael Cohen just

12:27

decided to do that out of the

12:29

goodness of his own heart for his

12:31

own mysterious reasons that have nothing to

12:33

do with Donald Trump, coincidentally after that

12:35

happened, Trump decided to start a

12:37

new way of paying his long-time lawyer

12:40

that involved $35,000 checks that he signed

12:42

in the Oval Office. And

12:44

it was all a coincidence and none of it had anything

12:46

to do with the election. Maybe.

12:50

We'll see. We're

12:52

going to talk tonight about what prosecutors

12:55

said about how they came up with

12:57

the payment plan to Cohen.

13:01

Personally, I unintentionally loudly

13:03

snorted in court when I heard this,

13:05

which was not at all polite. It

13:07

annoyed the person sitting next to me.

13:09

I will apologize and explain. We

13:11

will talk about that. We will talk about the

13:14

first witness whose name is Pekka because the news

13:16

gods like to tease us and test our maturity

13:18

as broadcasters. David Pekka was

13:20

the CEO of the company that used to

13:23

run the National Enquirer. His testimony only just

13:25

got started today. He was only on the stand

13:27

for about half an hour. But even

13:29

just in that half an hour, he already

13:31

gave prosecutors what would seem a bunch of

13:33

what they wanted. We're going

13:35

to talk about how weird it was that

13:37

when Trump's defense counsel was giving his opening

13:40

argument today, his opening statement

13:42

to the jury today, there

13:44

were multiple objections from the

13:46

prosecutors, objections to the opening statement, including

13:49

multiple objections that were sustained by the

13:51

judge, which led to the judge multiple

13:53

times stopping the opening statement and making

13:55

all the lawyers in the room come

13:57

up to the bench to talk to

13:59

him. in private. It was a bizarre thing

14:01

to see in person. We will get advice tonight

14:03

on how odd that is, both as a matter

14:06

of law and a trial procedure in

14:08

New York. We will also

14:10

tonight get to the card that prosecutors have

14:12

in their deck that

14:14

seems logically

14:17

unassailable, at least to non-lawyer

14:19

observers of this case. A

14:22

card the prosecutors have in their deck that

14:24

they showed a little bit of today, it

14:26

goes to the absolute heart of this matter.

14:28

We heard no defense to it today from

14:30

the other side, at least not yet. We're

14:33

going to get to all of that in this primetime recap

14:35

tonight. That's what we're here for. But I

14:37

want to start here with my colleagues with

14:39

overall impressions of how

14:41

things went today, how things are

14:44

starting off for the former president. Chris? I

14:47

have lots of thoughts, but my one

14:49

big takeaway actually was during the judge's

14:51

instructions to the jury. The

14:53

reason is that we've been doing this now, Donald Trump

14:56

comes down the escalator in 2015, so we've been doing

14:58

this for like nine years. There's this question of just

15:02

how does a democratic society come to its

15:04

conclusions about things? You think this metaphor of

15:06

the court of public opinion? There's

15:09

lots of reasons people believe what they believe

15:11

about Donald Trump. What was fascinating

15:13

in there is part of the reason I

15:15

think so many people wanted this trial is

15:17

that when he's given the instructions to the

15:19

jury, he's giving them a methodology for divining

15:21

the truth. He's talking to them and

15:24

saying, here are the ground rules. You guys

15:26

are coming from all different kinds of places. You might

15:28

have different politics, but here we're going

15:30

to all work on this methodology. You can

15:32

assess people's credibility. You can do that however you

15:34

want. You have to actually work off the evidence.

15:37

This is basic stipulation. There's almost some part of

15:39

you that wants there to be some small,

15:41

big democratic version of that in the

15:43

court of public opinion, but there was

15:45

something kind of bracing about that moment

15:48

simply because he has

15:50

thrived in an environment for so

15:52

long in defying what to

15:54

me seem the obvious ways that you should

15:57

come to conclusions about the world. you

16:00

have this cross-section of people, I also felt

16:02

like the level of language and sort of

16:04

intellect and knowledge he was assuming the jury

16:07

was great, perfect. He was not talking down

16:09

to them. He's like, you're smart grown up

16:11

people. Like this is how we're going to

16:13

do it. And it just felt to me

16:16

that the reason there's so much on this

16:18

is partly because of how haywire everything's gone

16:20

outside that courtroom, that there's

16:22

some little miniature version of something

16:25

happening in there about discourse and

16:27

reasons and arguments that was very

16:29

exciting to listen to. There's something about the

16:31

kind of politician that Trump is, which is about

16:33

an appeal to emotion and reason

16:35

doesn't apply, an appeal to emotion and reason doesn't

16:38

apply. And this is the inverse of that. Very

16:40

firmly like this is how we're going to do

16:42

it. I'm not telling you what conclusions to come

16:44

to, but the method for coming to conclusions we're

16:46

all going to agree with. And it's the opposite

16:48

of what we have in public life for nine

16:50

years. Exactly. Reassuring in any way. What struck me,

16:53

I mean, you outlined it so well in the

16:55

beginning there is just the difference between the opening

16:57

statements. And this is why it's so helpful to

16:59

have people actually watching it in the courtroom because

17:01

reading the transcripts, as I did, I have a

17:03

lot of post-it notes here. It

17:06

struck me that the defense was like a

17:08

circus leader kind of. That's like how you

17:10

had a couple of things clearly on a

17:12

note card. And then the prosecutions case, you

17:14

could picture what this guy was like in

17:16

a study group. I'd want to be in

17:19

his study group. He has like an outline.

17:21

He writes all the notes on it. And

17:23

even as nerdy in a good way as

17:25

that was, what was also striking to me

17:27

is, I mean, this is a case about

17:29

falsifying business records. He used so much real

17:31

estate and words in his opening statement to

17:33

lay out the case for why Trump is

17:36

a guy who paid the coverup information from

17:38

the American public multiple times. And I thought

17:40

that was interesting. I mean, the national inquirer

17:42

aspect of this, which is so important, was

17:45

so dominant this morning. This is

17:47

a story about the national inquirer, at

17:49

least thus far. And Michael, David

17:51

Packer, being the first witness, I think, is

17:54

both testimony to that and not an accident.

17:56

And I think that If

17:58

Trump and the national. Enquirer Trump and

18:01

Am Ice more in a criminal

18:03

conspiracy. As prosecutors allege, we all know almost

18:05

all we need to know about Trump. Most

18:08

of what we're going to learn as about

18:10

Ama Will are Rich Louis begin. With.

18:12

Reporting from My Beat. Which.

18:14

Is outside the building. Among

18:18

the people who I will now call

18:20

the people and not the protesters. Because.

18:23

They were protesting of cases she kind

18:25

of to I kind of three A

18:27

maybe I'm overpowering odds free Trump supporters

18:30

Alcala you couldn't hear a word from

18:32

them. They kept everything in a very

18:34

conversational tone of you is crit is

18:37

somewhere crysis you couldn't hear what they

18:39

were set to with to each other's

18:41

has gook trucks It's the only person

18:44

you could hear. Was

18:46

a loud mouth guy who was

18:48

fairly close to them yelling at

18:50

them about Bill Clinton balancing the

18:52

budget. That was

18:54

this. That or that's that's what's the

18:57

people had to say. Also as the

18:59

street she might have been doing that

19:01

since Nineteen Ninety Two. Guys

19:05

fire at the at the in the courtroom and of

19:07

is this the first time we've heard the defense in

19:09

here. We've had the in the I've been so we

19:11

knew a lot Rice we know an awful lot about

19:13

what we're going to hear. The

19:15

prosecution of me say this is the

19:18

defense opening statements and there is clear

19:20

they're clearly two things the clients as

19:22

demanding. One. Call

19:24

me Mister Press and Reduce. His lawyer

19:27

gets up there and as his as

19:29

a whole steps into the speech about

19:31

moderately why he is calling him President

19:34

Trump but by implication why everyone in

19:36

this room should call him President Trump's

19:38

and you're some kind of punk if

19:40

you've got know. So he was trying

19:43

to suggest of the other point that

19:45

seems to be. A quiet

19:47

directed instruction because the was no

19:49

need to do this specially no

19:51

need to do it today. To

19:55

claim that Donald Trump did

19:57

not have any sexual contact

19:59

him. Stormy Deck. Yeah, well,

20:01

that is a claim. Be on the

20:03

needs of the differences. Etti don't need

20:05

to claim that. They might decide tactically

20:07

to claim that at some point later

20:09

in this trial I can think of

20:12

whites. The only way they can actually

20:14

up to that into evidence is only

20:16

one way they can enter it And

20:18

that's by Donald Trump. Second, the with

20:20

the stamps. He's not gonna take a

20:22

step for a lot of reasons including

20:24

everything we saw him sound of. Also,

20:26

that's ah. But to. To.

20:29

Assert that in that opening statement that

20:31

the that juries gonna be in the

20:33

room without any proof or even testimony

20:35

from Donald Trump about what happened there

20:38

is certainly raises the question for the

20:40

prosecution if they were on the fence

20:42

about Com and Stormy journals. If they

20:44

weren't sure cause there's there's a theory

20:47

of a case for you don't have

20:49

to call Stormy Daniel. Stress what did

20:51

that due to the prosecution's thinking about

20:54

calling Stormy Daniels because it's they want

20:56

to claim. What? The

20:58

prosecution things is a lie

21:00

in their opening statements. Is

21:02

that something worth really going

21:04

after? That very issue of

21:06

when they were alone in

21:08

the hotel room. Did. What

21:10

did they just as an animal by

21:12

the way Juri, what do you think

21:14

that would events and here she is

21:16

here Ceos of that real person in

21:18

the room of it. If it's more

21:20

those things where you do just have

21:22

to wonder in a what was the

21:24

defense were thinking and the the answer

21:27

is likely to be thousand order from

21:29

Mcfly up there With and there was

21:31

that very quotable. Remark.

21:33

About Stormy Daniels from.

21:35

Mister Trump's defense counsel's a which he

21:38

said Stormy Daniels does not matter for

21:40

testimony will not matters are there was

21:42

a toddler. What matters is such as

21:44

you just said she's y eso you

21:46

made as a. Single

21:49

just made stormy day of testimony

21:51

matter much that I did yesterday

21:54

exam a series of this case

21:56

exactly. Katie! So for me! So

21:58

much time with as. before this

22:00

actual first criminal trial of Donald

22:03

Trump launched, poo-pooing the

22:05

importance of this case. And

22:07

I felt just the two hours we were

22:09

in court today that you saw

22:12

why we should care and

22:14

more importantly, why the jurors should care

22:16

about this case. And that's

22:18

always the most important job for a prosecutor

22:21

because these jurors are just doing civic duty.

22:23

Some of them are laboring against their better

22:25

kind of intentions of being there and their

22:27

concerns about being there. But when

22:30

you heard Matthew Colangelo get up today, he

22:32

very clearly and succinctly told the jury,

22:35

this is why it matters. And

22:37

that makes a difference because 34 felonies

22:40

is nothing to sneer at. Even one

22:42

could put Donald Trump in prison for

22:44

up to four years. And so when

22:47

you hear the prosecution that lay out

22:49

a clear roadmap, and that's what openings

22:51

are for, they're not for argument, they're

22:53

for laying out a roadmap of what the evidence is,

22:56

who are the players here? Why

22:59

are they so critical to the story? It

23:01

all starts to make sense. And that is why you

23:03

set the tone and openings. That is

23:06

why blanch meandering and wandering and trying to

23:08

pick something off a tree to decide what

23:10

to talk about. Send a message to the

23:12

jury, in the wrong

23:14

way, you don't have to be

23:16

here. But no, you have to be here. And

23:18

the reason why is what the prosecution told you

23:20

was going to be the crux of this case.

23:23

It's not just about the falsification.

23:25

It's to influence the outcome of

23:27

a presidential election. It's not the

23:30

private acts between two people. It's

23:33

how did it impact the American voters at large?

23:35

And I thought that was the most important thing

23:37

that we got of the opening stage. And Ken,

23:39

just in terms of your assessment, having seen

23:41

lots of trials and having seen people address the

23:43

jury for the first time like this, I feel

23:45

like as a non-lawyer watching those two different styles,

23:49

I know which one of those styles works better on

23:51

me in the moment. But

23:54

I don't want to presume that that's

23:56

true for juries. The looser style that

23:59

we're seeing, More emotive, emotional digressive

24:01

style that we're seeing from Mister

24:03

Blanche from Trump from Trump's Attorney

24:05

isn't necessarily less effective with a

24:07

jury. Earth, it's just a matter

24:09

of you know of a personal

24:12

match between. Between. The counselor

24:14

and that the audience is. It was a

24:16

great question because it really is sometimes a

24:18

personal preference. But you know and I respect

24:20

the concern about not having some type of

24:22

confirmation bias going into the Windsor assessing how

24:25

these openings were done. But there's a reason

24:27

why they're opening statements and more importantly does

24:29

your reasoning. There's a reason why the objections

24:31

by the prosecution.sustain down because when Blanche went

24:33

beyond what he was allowed to do, not

24:36

only did the objects and get sustained and

24:38

you can watch law and order all day

24:40

long and understand that an object in that

24:42

the same. And you did something wrong with

24:44

us for did you notice how it interrupted slow.

24:47

Yeah. Okay moment. I'm. Saying

24:50

and any sit downs but they have

24:52

to go sidebar multiple times. It's a

24:54

blank, has a interrupted interrupt, and it's

24:56

rot and Net sends a message to

24:58

the jury that blame just doing something

25:01

wrong. So what is not be more

25:03

emotive casual style is you're saying the

25:05

fact that is getting. Chastised

25:07

by the judge sends a message as.

25:09

A. Dearth can very very good point. All

25:11

right, we're going to talk about the

25:13

sustain, the sustaining the of those objections

25:15

and the interruptions to Donald Trump's lawyers

25:17

opening statements are they were going to

25:19

talk about solicit If you, if you

25:21

were in charge of defending Donald Trump,

25:24

what would you most worry about? What

25:26

was the most unassailable about the prosecution's

25:28

case went to talk about that would

25:30

have yeah right after the break the

25:32

law to get his next day. To

25:45

day and every day. Planned Parenthood is

25:47

committed to ensuring that everyone has the

25:49

information and. Resources They need to make

25:51

their own decisions about their bodies, including

25:54

abortions here. Lawmakers who oppose

25:56

abortion or attacking Planned Parenthood.

25:58

which means affordable high quality basic

26:00

health care for more than 2 million

26:02

people is at stake. The right to control

26:04

our bodies and get the health care we

26:07

need has been stolen from us. And now,

26:09

politicians in nearly every state have introduced bills

26:11

that would block people from getting the sexual

26:13

and reproductive care they need. Planned

26:16

Parenthood believes everyone deserves health care. It's

26:18

a human right. That's why

26:20

they fight every day to push for

26:22

common-sense policies that protect our right to

26:24

control our own bodies and against policies

26:27

that interfere with decisions between patients and

26:29

their doctor. Planned Parenthood

26:31

needs your support now more than ever.

26:34

With supporters like you, we can reclaim

26:36

our rights and protect and expand access

26:38

to abortion care. Visit

26:41

plannedparenthood.org/future. That's

26:43

plannedparenthood.org/future. Welcome

26:54

back to our primetime recap of

26:56

today's proceedings in the criminal trial

26:59

of former President Donald Trump. Now,

27:01

as Lawrence O'Donnell just mentioned, today

27:03

was the first time that we've

27:05

heard from the defense. We've heard from

27:07

the prosecution, in effect, with

27:10

the indictment, with the

27:12

announcement of charges that led

27:14

to today's proceedings. But this is the first

27:16

time we got to see the defense go

27:18

through their paces. For the defense

27:21

counsel for former President Trump, we did get

27:23

a sense in their opening statements today about how

27:25

it looks like they're going to try to defend

27:27

their client. If today's opening statements

27:29

are any guide, they're going to stress

27:32

that Mr. Trump is a former president

27:34

and they're going to always call him

27:36

President Trump. They're going to stress beyond

27:38

that, that he right now is

27:40

the presumptive Republican nominee for president

27:42

again, or as his defense counsel

27:44

called him today, the Republican nominee,

27:46

not even presumptive. They're

27:49

going to claim that every aspect of

27:51

this was an innocent act by Trump,

27:53

that there wasn't an underlying sexual encounter

27:56

to cover up, even though that would seem

27:58

to be immaterial to the charges. They

28:00

will seem to be claiming again if today's

28:03

opening statements are any guide that Michael Cohen

28:05

Trump's lawyer Paid a porn

28:07

star on his own accord

28:09

and for his own reasons that

28:12

Trump only paid Michael Cohen for legal

28:14

services Just like he always had he

28:16

just changed to a weird new way

28:18

of paying him after the porn

28:20

star thing because well They'll think of something But

28:24

if you were in this defense team if you were in

28:26

charge of coming up with the defense for mr.

28:29

Trump Here's the part of

28:31

the prosecution's case that would seem

28:33

to be the most difficult thing to

28:35

explain logically If

28:37

you're really going to try to mount a defense that Trump did

28:40

nothing at all wrong that there was no Conspiracy

28:42

to corrupt the election as the prosecution put

28:44

it at the top of their opening statements

28:46

today Well, this would

28:49

seem to be The

28:51

toughest thing logically that

28:53

you're up against here. It is this is

28:55

from the opening statement from prosecutor Matthew, Calangela

28:58

Calangela quote Now

29:01

with this oh, sorry, this is not quoting it Forgive

29:03

me This is the introduction at this point Calangela has

29:05

explained to the jury that there was what he called

29:07

a criminal conspiracy between Trump

29:09

and am I American media

29:12

to publish positive stories about Trump

29:14

to publish negative stories about Trump's rivals to

29:16

find Negative stories about Trump that hadn't

29:18

been published yet and then to pay

29:21

the sources of the stories To

29:23

make them shut up and not tell

29:25

anybody about those stories before the election

29:27

So the prosecution has explained to the jury

29:29

at this point that am I American media national

29:32

inquirer? They first found

29:34

a doorman a doorman named

29:36

Dino Dino Sejuddin who said

29:38

that Trump had fathered a secret child with

29:40

a housekeeper So Juden was the first one

29:43

that am I paid to keep quiet about

29:45

his story Then there was a second one

29:47

a woman named Karen McDougal who said she

29:49

had an affair with Trump They paid her

29:52

to not tell anybody about that story as

29:54

well Then there was the third one Stormy

29:56

Daniels and although by this point the inquirer

29:58

was so to make arrangements for

30:01

her to be paid, to be quiet about

30:03

that story. By that point, they were not

30:05

ready to put up additional money. And

30:07

so Michael Cohen put up the money for

30:10

that. So the prosecutors explained all this to

30:12

the jury, and then he says this,

30:14

prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, quote,

30:17

Cohen made that payment at Donald Trump's direction and

30:19

for his benefit. And he did it with

30:22

a specific goal of influencing the outcome of the

30:24

election. Now look, no politician wants

30:26

bad press, but the evidence

30:28

at trial will show that this was not

30:30

spin or communication strategy. This was a planned

30:33

coordinated law running conspiracy to influence the 2016

30:35

election, to help Donald

30:37

Trump get elected through illegal expenditures, to

30:40

silence people who had something bad to

30:42

say about his behavior, using doctored

30:44

corporate records and bank forms to

30:46

conceal those payments along the way.

30:49

It was election fraud, pure and

30:51

simple. We will never know, and

30:53

it doesn't matter, if this conspiracy was the

30:55

difference maker in a close election. But

30:58

you will see evidence in the defendant's

31:01

own words from his social media posts,

31:03

from the speeches at campaign rallies and

31:05

other events. You will see in his own

31:07

words, making crystal clear that he was certainly

31:10

concerned about how all of this could hurt

31:12

his standing with voters and with female voters

31:14

in particular. You will also see evidence that

31:16

on election night, as

31:18

news outlets got closer to calling the

31:20

election for Donald Trump, the lawyer for

31:22

both Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, texted

31:25

Dylan Howard, an editor at the National

31:27

Enquirer, and he said, quote, what

31:30

have we done? And

31:33

about a month after the election,

31:35

David Pecker, the CEO of American

31:38

Media, then authorized AMI to release

31:40

both Dino Sajudin, the doorman, and

31:43

Karen McDougall from their

31:45

non-disclosure agreement. Say

31:48

that again, about a month after the election,

31:51

Pecker authorized AMI to release

31:53

the first two recipients of catch

31:56

and kill money, release

31:58

them from their non-disclosure agreements. the

32:00

election was over. Colangelo quote,

32:02

so having paid for the stories in order

32:04

to keep them from the public before election

32:07

day, Pekka and AMI then told both McDougall

32:09

and Sajudin a month after the election that

32:11

they were no longer bound by the

32:13

non-disclosure agreements. So

32:16

just think about what that means. This claim,

32:18

right, from the defense is that none of

32:20

these payment schemes had anything to do with

32:23

the election. Who knows what Michael Cohen was

32:25

doing paying that porn star. Donald Trump was

32:27

just paying for legal fees, right? The

32:29

defense is saying it said nothing to do

32:32

with the election. The prosecution says they will

32:34

present evidence that Trump and American media paid

32:36

for all of these people to be silent

32:38

until the election was over. And

32:42

then once the election was over, they then released

32:44

all these people from these agreements to be silent.

32:47

Because once the election happened, they

32:49

didn't care anymore. Because at that

32:51

point, mission accomplished because the mission

32:53

was to influence the election. And

32:56

so once the election was done, there's no more need for

32:59

these agreements. The mission was

33:01

the election. The mission was not to

33:03

protect his brand. The

33:05

mission wasn't to save his family, embarrassment.

33:08

It was to keep these people silent, to pay

33:11

them to be silent specifically and

33:13

only in order

33:15

to win the election full stop. Prosecution

33:19

calls this a criminal scheme to corrupt

33:21

the 2016 presidential election, one

33:23

that was covered up by lying in these

33:26

business records. Logically

33:29

that whole releasing people

33:31

from the agreements once the election

33:33

was over, logically that would seem

33:35

to be the crux of this case

33:37

if the prosecution can prove it. Legally,

33:40

though, we'll see. Lawrence? So,

33:43

Rachel, here we arrive at

33:45

the different burdens of prosecution

33:47

and defense. The prosecution

33:49

is going for logic, and you are

33:51

following their logic. And their logic takes

33:54

you over to the National Enquirer and

33:56

it takes you over to this guy

33:58

who said... told the choir

34:01

that Trump fathered a child, that turns

34:03

out not to be true. Everyone in

34:05

the courtroom agrees that that wasn't true.

34:08

And then it takes you over to Karen McDougall. And those are

34:10

the two who are released

34:12

from their confidentiality agreement after the

34:14

election. And what the defense is going

34:16

to say in final argument is that

34:18

has nothing to do with this case,

34:21

absolutely nothing. Because

34:24

remember, what the defense needs in final

34:26

argument is not logic. They're not trying

34:28

to take you through a flawlessly

34:31

logical story. They're just

34:33

trying to tug at any little

34:35

doubt they can find anywhere. And

34:39

they will lean in final

34:41

argument on that agreement in

34:44

that courtroom, that that guy who

34:46

told the inquirer that Donald Trump,

34:49

illegitantly fathered a child, was not telling the

34:51

truth, wasn't telling the truth,

34:53

just like Stormy Daniels wasn't telling the truth

34:55

about Donald Trump. He gets

34:57

hustled by these people all the time.

34:59

And we have to deal with them

35:02

in different ways. Donald Trump has said

35:04

publicly, this happens to every man, every

35:06

man, clued you, Chris

35:08

A, sitting at this table, every man

35:11

who's public, every man who's in

35:13

the public eye is constantly paying

35:15

off tens of thousands, hundreds of

35:17

thousands of these deals all the

35:19

time. That's Donald Trump's claim, right? And

35:22

he's going to say, you know, this was happening to me all

35:24

the time. And

35:26

all of that MacDougall stuff, everything involving

35:28

Pekka, everything involving the inquirer is going

35:30

to be thrown out the door in

35:33

the final argument of Donald Trump's defense

35:35

lawyers because none of that is a

35:37

charged crime. Not a single thing in any

35:39

of that. It's these business records.

35:41

And the other piece of the defense that we

35:43

heard today about the business records is this

35:47

is the name of the woman who made

35:49

up, you know, the checks. This is the

35:51

name of the bookkeeper centered in the record

35:54

who filled out the forms. This

35:56

is the name of the person who told

35:58

her to say legal services and. Donald Trump

36:00

never told any of them to say

36:02

legal services. That's

36:04

the defense. Donald Trump didn't tell them to keep

36:06

the books this way. And

36:09

the money, oh by the way, was not

36:11

for having anything to do with Stormy Daniels.

36:13

That's the entire defense. There's no other piece

36:15

of the defense. And it has nothing to

36:17

do with other people's, you

36:20

know, non-disclosure agreements and all

36:22

that stuff. And of

36:24

course, all of that stuff makes perfect

36:26

sense when a prosecution is building

36:28

you this flawless table

36:31

that has logical, four logical legs

36:33

to it. Defense is going

36:36

to come along and say, no, it has no

36:38

legs. The table has no legs. Thanks. We

36:41

released all these people from these agreements after

36:43

the election because we love

36:46

late November. And that's

36:48

the time when we released everyone's marriage. Merry

36:50

Christmas. It's a time of... There you feel

36:52

no need. The defense will feel no need

36:54

to explain at all why those non-disclosure agreements

36:57

were no longer enforceable. They won't have any

36:59

need to when they're in their final argument.

37:01

They'll throw something out there in the course

37:03

of the trial, but they won't feel compelled

37:05

to explain. Well, what you're talking

37:08

about, about the claim of from Dino

37:10

the doorman being a false claim, what

37:12

am I nevertheless agreed to pay for

37:14

it? And what Michael Cohen

37:16

was paid and how they arrived at

37:18

that amount was the snore

37:20

your coffee out your nose in

37:22

the courtroom moment today. We're going to talk about

37:25

that, including with Andrew Weissman

37:27

and Catherine Christian, who are here, who

37:29

are going to keep on keeping us

37:31

on the legal straight and narrow as we as

37:34

we proceed with our crime time recap

37:36

of today's criminal proceedings. Again,

37:45

we appreciate

37:50

it. Today and every day Planned Parenthood

37:53

is committed to ensuring that everyone has

37:55

the information and resources They need to

37:57

make their own decisions about their bodies, including.

38:00

The pair. Lawmakers who oppose abortion

38:02

or attacking Planned Parenthood which means affordable,

38:04

high quality, basic health care for more

38:06

than two million people is at stake.

38:08

The right to control our bodies and

38:10

gets a health care we need has

38:13

been stolen from us. and now politicians

38:15

and nearly every state have introduced bills

38:17

that would block people from getting the

38:19

sexual and reproductive care they need. Planned

38:21

Parenthood believes everyone deserves health. It's a

38:24

human right. That's why they fight every

38:26

day to push for common sense policies

38:28

to protect our right to. Control our

38:30

own bodies and against policies that

38:33

interfere with decisions. Between patients and

38:35

their doctor. Planned. Parenthood needs

38:37

your support now more than ever.

38:39

With. Supporters like you. We can

38:42

reclaim our rights and protect

38:44

and expand access to abortion

38:46

care. Visit Planned parenthood.org Sas

38:48

Future That's Planned parenthood.org/future. Welcome.

38:59

Back to our prime time recap

39:01

of today's criminal court proceedings against

39:03

former. President. Donald Trump. I was

39:05

at the courthouse to their Manhattan. I

39:07

was in the cloakroom for opening. same

39:10

as for this first criminal trial of

39:12

former President I can report. Source tells

39:14

that the court room smells like all

39:16

the suits and spell breaths. I can

39:19

report that the police officers of the

39:21

least the courtroom are working very hard

39:23

and they appear. To be very stressed

39:25

I can report that such more saw

39:28

in the is soft spoken. And has

39:30

what I think would be universally considered

39:32

to be a pleasant voice. I an

39:34

report that Prosecutor Matthew collapse allow speaks

39:36

exactly like Seth Meyers seats. When Seth

39:38

Meyers is not telling jokes I can

39:40

tell you that the first witness David

39:43

Peppers accidentally gave out his whole phone

39:45

number today. When the prosecutor just ask

39:47

them to confirm the last four digits

39:49

to the trying to remember the last

39:51

four digits in that order to get

39:53

there in his head, he said the

39:55

whole number out loud and food didn't

39:57

mean to do that. I can report.

40:00

that former President Donald Trump looks

40:02

a lot older than he used to and

40:05

that it seemed to me in my subjective

40:07

take that he seemed miserable

40:09

to be there. But

40:12

you know, I look a

40:14

lot older than I used to look as well and

40:16

I think anybody's got a right to look miserable

40:18

when they're sitting in a courtroom charged with dozens

40:20

of felonies as a criminal defendant. The

40:23

courtroom is bare bones, it is

40:25

not large, it

40:28

is inelegant, it has unflattering

40:30

lighting. Like I

40:32

said, it does not smell good and

40:34

everybody is very tense. What

40:36

I mean to present to you with all

40:38

of this information is that given

40:41

the choice, nobody would want to be there. Except

40:44

of course, journalists and reporters covering the

40:47

most historic trial in American political history.

40:50

To that end, I'd also like

40:52

to say that I am sorry to the journalists

40:55

who were sitting immediately next to me because

40:58

I unintentionally snorted out loud and went,

41:00

ooh, when this happened today at the

41:02

trial and when I read this part

41:04

of the transcript to you, you will know why I said, ooh.

41:08

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. In

41:11

January 2017, before the defendant

41:13

moved down to Washington to begin his presidency,

41:16

Michael Cohen met with Alan Weisselberg of

41:18

the Trump Organization to talk about how

41:20

Cohen was going to get reimbursed for

41:22

the payoff to Stormy Daniels. Weisselberg, you

41:24

will remember, was the Trump Organization chief

41:27

financial officer and he was one of

41:29

the defendants, longest serving and most trusted

41:31

employees. Neither Trump nor the

41:33

Trump Organization could just write a check

41:35

to Michael Cohen for $130,000 with

41:38

a memo line that said, reimbursement

41:40

for porn star payoff. They

41:43

had to disguise the nature of the repayment.

41:45

So they agreed to cook the books and

41:47

make it look like the repayment was actually

41:50

income. Payments for services

41:52

rendered instead of a reimbursement. Alan

41:55

Weisselberg asked Mr. Cohen to bring a

41:57

copy of a bank statement showing the

41:59

130. $130,000 payment

42:01

that Cohen had made to keep Stormy Daniels quiet

42:03

before the election. Weisselberg and Cohen

42:05

agreed to a total repayment amount of $420,000. Here

42:10

is how they got to that number. This

42:12

is good. They started with

42:14

$130,000 that Trump owed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payoff. Then

42:20

they added $50,000 for a separate

42:22

reimbursement Cohen was claiming, which had to

42:24

do with tech services he paid for

42:27

during the campaign. That adds

42:29

up to $180,000. Then

42:31

they agreed to double that amount to $360,000 to account for

42:33

taxes. Now,

42:37

of course, if Trump was just reimbursing Cohen,

42:40

there was no need to gross it up for taxes. They

42:43

doubled it because their plan was to call it

42:45

income instead of a reimbursement. If Cohen was getting

42:47

money, they were calling income. He would have to

42:49

pay taxes on it. Cohen was close to a

42:51

50% tax bracket. So

42:53

to make him whole on the $180,000 that the defendant owed him, they had to double

42:58

the amount to $360,000. Then

43:01

he had added another $60,000 as a year end bonus.

43:06

All of that comes out to a total of $420,000. Alan

43:11

Weisselberg wrote all of that down. Whereupon,

43:15

I annoyed the people sitting near me because I snored

43:17

it out loud and said, ooh, he

43:19

wrote it all down. If

43:22

you were a fan of a wire, this is the

43:24

scene where Stringer Bell turns to the young man and

43:26

says, are you taking notes on a

43:28

criminal conspiracy? Using a lot of

43:30

swear words. Yes, yes,

43:32

he was taking notes on a criminal conspiracy.

43:36

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, Alan

43:38

Weisselberg wrote all of that

43:40

down. Yeah,

43:44

you can't believe this is real. The

43:47

bank statement that I told you about that he asked

43:49

Cohen to bring to their meeting, the

43:51

bank statement from the Essential Consultants account, which showed

43:53

the $130,000 wire that Cohen

43:56

had made to Keith Davidson to keep Stormy

43:58

Daniels quiet. in this trial,

44:00

Allen Weisselberg's handwriting down the side

44:02

of that bank statement, laying out

44:04

every one of the steps that

44:06

I just described, showing how they

44:08

converted the $130,000 payoff amount to

44:11

the 420 grand that Cohen was going

44:13

to get paid back as a grossed up way

44:15

to disguise it, not as reimbursement, but as income.

44:18

And they took notes about it every step of

44:20

the way, and the prosecution has the

44:22

notes. And then here's

44:24

the kicker, Matthew Colangelo,

44:27

prosecutor, quote, Cohen and Weisselberg then met

44:29

with Trump, who approved the repayment amount of 420

44:31

grand on the $130,000 Stormy

44:33

Daniels payment and

44:35

a few other expenses. Now you will

44:37

see evidence at trial that Trump was

44:39

a very frugal businessman. He

44:42

believed in pinching pennies, he believed in watching

44:44

every dollar, he believed in negotiating every bill,

44:46

it's all over all of the books he

44:48

has written, he ran the Trump organization with

44:50

total control, you will hear testimony about his

44:52

relentless focus on the bottom line. But when

44:54

it came time to pay Michael Cohen back

44:56

for the catch and kill deal, you will

44:58

see that he didn't negotiate the

45:00

price down, he doubled it. And he doubled

45:02

it so they could disguise it as income.

45:04

And you will hear evidence that the Trump

45:06

organization was not in the practice of paying

45:09

people twice what they owed for anything. This

45:11

might be the only time that ever

45:13

happened. And Trump's willingness to do so

45:15

here shows just how important it was

45:17

to him to hide the true nature of

45:19

Cohen's illegal payment to Ms. Daniels and the

45:22

overall election conspiracy that

45:24

they had launched in August, 2015. Prosecutors

45:27

saying Trump is paying a lot for

45:30

this and he never pays for anything,

45:32

that's how important and sensitive this was.

45:35

Now interestingly, moments

45:38

later, the defense used this same

45:40

set of facts to make the opposite point

45:42

to the jury, saying yeah, Trump really is

45:44

so cheap and so unwilling

45:46

to pay for anything. So this

45:49

must have been some other thing he was paying for. Not

45:52

the thing they have handwritten

45:55

notes from his CFO about. Joining

45:57

us now is former FBI General Counsel Andrew Rice.

46:00

also with us former assistant district attorney

46:02

in the Manhattan district attorney's office, Catherine

46:04

Christian Catherine and Andrew Thank you both

46:07

for being here Andrew Let me ask

46:09

you first was Stringer Bell right to

46:11

ask Alan Weisselberg Are you

46:13

taking notes on a criminal conspiracy is this

46:15

document potentially important here? So

46:18

you must have seen my notes because

46:20

that is Starred that was the

46:23

page where I had the same reaction

46:26

so One of the things

46:28

that you listen for when you listen to openings

46:30

on both sides is you know

46:33

that there are Witnesses who are going to

46:35

testify and you think about how they're going

46:37

to do whether they have memory issues whether

46:39

they have credibility issues but then you look

46:41

for what is the prostitution going to say

46:43

with respect to what's so called hard evidence

46:45

and There the things that

46:47

stood out to me was you had a

46:49

reference to the tape recording that we've heard

46:51

about That's where Donald Trump is overheard saying

46:53

hey, let's just pay the hundred and thirty

46:55

thousand in cash That's

46:57

that's a terrible tape for

47:00

Donald Trump Second there was references

47:02

to telephone records at a critical

47:04

time that the payments were first

47:06

made by Michael

47:08

Cohen to Store

47:10

me Daniels where there are two

47:13

calls that the prosecutor referenced Between

47:15

Michael Cohen and Donald Trump

47:18

and then the third was this which is

47:20

definitely a fall off your chair Moment

47:22

where they have it in writing and

47:25

what's so interesting is that

47:27

the defense said the repayment?

47:30

Was not reap it was

47:33

not reimbursement for the payments

47:35

to store me Daniels I do not

47:37

know how they're going to deal with

47:39

that when you have these notes and

47:41

remember when you make a promise when you

47:44

say something at openings as Catherine

47:47

knows as Katie knows that comes back

47:49

to haunt you if you have over

47:51

promised if you've made a misstatement That

47:54

both sides are listening for that because they're

47:56

going to bring it up again in closing

47:59

Catherine is it Is it important here that

48:01

we don't expect Alan Weisselberg himself to

48:03

be a witness, to potentially

48:05

walk the jury through what his notes meant

48:08

and explain this document that is

48:11

otherwise sort of a fall off

48:13

your chair moment, like Andrew said? Well, it's

48:15

a good thing since he's serving time for

48:17

perjury. So neither side wants

48:19

him as a witness. So

48:21

it's very good for the prosecution because they

48:24

can just have the notes. And

48:26

obviously Donald Trump doesn't want a perjury

48:28

testifying on his behalf. So that's a

48:30

good thing. But I agree with Andrew.

48:34

This is the corroboration. When you talk

48:36

about Michael Cohen and his baggage, this

48:38

is where you have corroboration of

48:41

his statement. So there's no way

48:43

the Manhattan DA's office would have

48:45

just relied on Michael Cohen's testimony

48:47

if they did not have corroborating

48:49

documents, corroborating witnesses. Our

48:52

primetime recap of the only criminal trial

48:54

in the history of a former American

48:56

president, not to mention a presumptive presidential

48:58

nominee, is going to continue right

49:00

after the break with our All Star panel and

49:02

our legal experts here. We've got much more to

49:05

come. Welcome

49:28

back to our primetime recap of

49:30

the criminal court proceedings today against

49:32

former president Donald Trump, the historic

49:34

first ever criminal trial of a

49:36

former president, the first ever criminal

49:39

trial of a major party

49:41

presidential nominee. Okay. Question

49:43

from the prosecutor. So

49:46

as CEO and president and chairman, did

49:48

you have the final say over publishing

49:50

decisions, including which stories would

49:52

get published and which stories would not get

49:55

published? Answer from David

49:57

Pekker, former CEO of American Media. Yes,

50:00

I had the final say. On

50:02

the celebrity side of the magazine industry, at

50:05

least on the tabloid side, we used checkbook

50:07

journalism and we pay for stories.

50:10

So I gave a number to the editors that they could not

50:12

spend more than $10,000 to investigate or

50:16

produce or publish a story. So anything over

50:18

$10,000 that they would spend on a story,

50:20

that would have to be vetted and brought

50:22

up to me if they were going to spend

50:25

more for approval. Question. Prosecutor.

50:28

In addition to having to approve expenditures, did

50:30

you also have final kind

50:32

of editorial say? In other

50:34

words, the ability to determine that a particular story was

50:36

not going to be run or a particular story was going

50:38

to be run? Answer. David

50:41

Pecker. Being in the publishing industry for 40 years,

50:44

I realized early in my career that

50:46

the only thing that was important is

50:48

the cover of a magazine. So

50:50

when the editors produce a story or prepare the cover, we would have

50:52

a meeting and they would present to me what the story would be,

50:55

what the concept was, what the cost was going to be. Question.

50:58

Prosecutor. And if the story involves, I guess for lack

51:00

of a better way to say it, a big story

51:02

or a famous person, did you have

51:04

the final say on whether or not to publish that story?

51:07

Answer David Pecker. Yes, I

51:10

did. The first witness

51:12

in the criminal trial of former

51:14

President Donald Trump today was David

51:16

Pecker, the former CEO of American

51:18

Media Inc., AMI, which is the company

51:20

that used to own the National

51:23

Inquirer. Now two salient points here about

51:25

that testimony from David Pecker. He's only on

51:27

the stand for like half an hour today, but

51:29

we get all of this very salient stuff

51:32

for the prosecution's case. First

51:34

of all, there's what he said about what counts as

51:36

a normal amount of

51:38

money for the kind of checkbook

51:40

journalism that he says his company does.

51:43

Anything over $10,000, that would be unusual. That

51:47

would be sort of out of bounds. That would have

51:49

to get personal approval from him as

51:51

the chairman, president and CEO of not

51:54

just one of these publications, but the

51:56

entire company With dozens of publications.

52:00

Feeling beyond that as had to go. Personally throw

52:02

him. But.

52:04

In this case, prosecutors say. They

52:06

will present evidence that I am. I was doing

52:08

something l whole other earlier when it came to

52:10

what they were doing for trump. For.

52:13

Example: Before even investigating a Trump

52:15

property door mans claim about Trump

52:17

supposedly fathering a secret child with

52:20

a housekeeper, they paid that man

52:22

Thirty thousand dollars. They pay the

52:24

man making the claim thirty thousand

52:27

dollars to make him be quiet

52:29

about it before they even investigated.

52:32

Whether it might be true. For

52:34

full, what is their normal limits for

52:36

having to go to the Ceo? Also.

52:40

The claim about. The affair with Trump

52:42

from former. Playboy playmate Karen Mcdougall.

52:44

They paid her hundred and sixty

52:46

thousand dollars, which was fifteen times

52:49

Their limits are going to the

52:51

Ceo and appears to have been

52:53

way beyond what they were paying.

52:56

Anybody else for anything. Prosecutor

52:59

Massive Lancelot Close after consultant

53:01

with. Cohen. Pepper directed his

53:03

editor in Chief of The National Enquirer

53:06

to negotiate an agreement to pay thirty

53:08

thousand dollars to the doorman to buy

53:10

exclusive rights to that story. The evidence

53:12

will show that Packer was not acting

53:14

as a publisher. he was acting as

53:17

a coconspirators. The. Evidence will

53:19

show that this was a highly unusual

53:21

deals season for tabloid journalism. It was

53:23

a lot more money than they would

53:25

usually paid was source. They

53:27

bought the doorman story without even fully

53:30

investigating. It was the first time David

53:32

Pecker had ever paid any one for

53:34

information about Donald Trump. A

53:36

Pet and directed that the deal take

53:38

place because of the agreement he had

53:40

reached, the because he had promised Trump

53:42

at Trump Tower Meeting and August twenty

53:44

sustain that he would use as media

53:46

empire to help the defendants campaign and

53:48

they knew that public disclosure of the

53:50

door Mans information would hurt that campaign.

53:53

So. What prosecutors laid out

53:56

today and what the witness helped

53:58

them prove today. That

54:00

the practices described here in this

54:02

alleged criminal conspiracy It's we're not

54:04

at all normal. Not even for

54:07

tabloid checkbook journalism Set pays for

54:09

stories and even for American media

54:11

specifically, and the National Enquirer specifically.

54:13

This is Not their. Back.

54:16

This is not part of what they do

54:18

as a magazine. This.

54:20

Is part of what they do as an

54:22

alleged criminal conspiracy. It's with Donald Trump to

54:24

illegally influence the election. Should.

54:27

At. The. Second and final

54:30

part about this David Pecker testimony that

54:32

is. Perhaps salient to the overall

54:34

case here is the part where she says

54:36

that the. Coat. Only thing

54:39

that's important is the cover.

54:41

Of a magazine Just. Stepping

54:45

back from just the legal fight here. If

54:48

this was a criminal conspiracy to influence the election.

54:52

How much influence and we talking about here. In.

54:54

Terms of how much influence this alleged

54:56

criminal conspiracy could have had on the

54:59

election. For. How influential as

55:01

the National Enquirer? I am

55:03

in the National Enquirer Only reportedly has

55:05

about one hundred and fifty thousand two

55:07

hundred thousand copies sold nationwide and a

55:09

week these days. At.

55:12

The covers. The covers. Of the

55:14

only thing that matters. They. Have

55:16

their covers in the face of

55:18

every one who shops And a

55:21

mainstream grocery store anywhere in America

55:23

Us in all Fifty states. The

55:25

cover of the National Enquirer per

55:27

David Packers. The. Only thing that matters

55:29

The covers of that magazines from the

55:31

time of this alleged criminal conspiracy. It's

55:34

with Trump the covers that were in

55:36

your face of every supermarket in the

55:38

country's week after week and for months

55:40

on end looked like this. From

55:44

why I am the only

55:46

choice for presidents. The

55:48

Donald Trump Nobody Knows Snow

55:51

Babes and Box. No

55:53

real reason. He hates Obama. Am.

55:55

The Clintons system has a special place

55:57

in my heart. Drop

56:00

a brother that. For.

56:02

This one how Trump will win. For.

56:05

Following how Trump will the

56:07

debates. Also. Hillary's nephew was

56:09

in the class. Shop

56:12

takes charge. Also.

56:15

Bill Clinton is Diane. And

56:18

Hillary is dying. In

56:20

a hotel bill or is corrupt.

56:23

If that was not clear enough, just as corrupt as

56:25

one big word. Also, Hillary will

56:27

never be President and this

56:29

was their election eve bombshell.

56:31

addition. To. Make sure

56:34

he had all the bases here. Hillary. Syrup

56:36

Races Criminal. Before

56:39

Twenty Six Team, the National

56:42

Enquirer never before endorsed a

56:44

presidential. Candidate. And

56:47

businesses. What? they didn't twenty sixteen when

56:49

they did those puzzles, they were doing

56:51

something very different. What Donald Trump and

56:54

they had ever done with any politician

56:56

before. Something that was. In.

56:58

The face of every person who ever

57:00

walked up to the law conveyor belt

57:02

thing at a supermarket checkout line anywhere

57:04

in America. Any time during the

57:07

duration of the alleged conspiracies, which was

57:09

the duration of a twenty sixteen campaigns.

57:11

Whether or not you ever picked

57:13

up that magazine, let alone opened

57:16

it past the cover, this propaganda

57:18

which was the product of this

57:20

allegedly illegal campaign scheme was in

57:23

the face of. Likely.

57:26

If. Not tens of millions of Americans?

57:28

perhaps? More. Than one hundred

57:30

million Americans? How many of us got a grocery

57:32

store? This.

57:34

Was straight a strange out of character

57:36

first time ever arrangement they made with

57:38

this one candidate with trump. Or

57:41

Prosecutor Center opening statement said was a

57:43

criminal schemes to corrupt the Twenty sixteen

57:45

presidential elections a criminal scheme that was

57:47

have to me Trump Tower meeting just

57:49

a few weeks after. He announced his

57:52

candidacy for president. A

57:55

criminal steam which ultimately landed him in criminal court.

57:57

To that as the first ever Us President to

57:59

be. The Found It and A Criminal Trials

58:01

on the cover up of that alleged criminal

58:04

conspiracy. It's which charged as a string of

58:06

thirty four felonies. And. New York

58:08

State Joy Reid trying since now Joy my

58:10

friends. There

58:12

is. Not a lawyer.

58:15

Not. A little or no one of many things that

58:17

we are indeed I feel like there is a way

58:19

to look at what's happening in the court room that

58:21

you need legal help with. the need legal expertise kind

58:23

of walk us through and from the how. These things

58:26

land and how juries are likely to react to

58:28

them. But I also feel like there's the real

58:30

deal of look at it in terms of the

58:32

logic yeah and the case that's being made in

58:34

what we understand about what space be young and

58:36

and you know you quoted. We also share a

58:38

love of the Wire. Clearly didn't little into the Stringer

58:40

Bell earlier. I'm an occult Marlo Stanfield. You wanted to

58:43

be one way. But. It's other way

58:45

as it is. The thing that is that

58:47

you just pointed out the of the checkbook

58:49

journalism piece. Normally if you pay for a

58:51

salacious piece of news publisher you put it

58:53

on the cover isn't So if you're the

58:56

national choir acting and Naslund are acting as

58:58

they normally would act and you got outdoor

59:00

man spit says he knows about in illicit

59:02

child of one of the most famous men

59:05

in America was running for president. You publicity

59:07

don't. Not publicity If you know that

59:09

the Babes and the Bucks and I

59:11

had an affair and nine month affair

59:13

with a Playboy bunnies. You publicity don't

59:15

Not publish it so they're asking in

59:17

a way that they don't normally act

59:19

And earlier you ever talk. About. The things

59:22

that kind of stood out to you in

59:24

the opening arguments as the thing that stood

59:26

out to me that goes along with this

59:28

is the part where they said Donald Trump

59:30

may seem. Larger than life, But.

59:32

He's just a man. He's a

59:35

father and husband Chris. Is already lapping

59:37

father anaheim of a Russell and he's just

59:39

like you. His. Sister Daggett, you know it

59:41

just gets. You know what's not normal and regular?

59:45

The babes and bucks guy being on the

59:47

cover of the Enquirer talking about how he's

59:49

you know, with all the babes and A.all

59:51

the bucks. The is it would also not

59:53

normal is even being accused of having an

59:55

illicit child. And having that be a thing or. Being

59:57

a to the middle sleeping with a porn actors like

59:59

that. That's not normal. And here's the thing that

1:00:01

I think is the biggest problem Donald Trump is going to

1:00:04

have. This is not about 2020 Trump. This

1:00:08

is about 2015, 2016 Trump, who was

1:00:10

running for office as apprentice Trump, where the

1:00:12

babes and the bucks were his brand, sleeping

1:00:14

with a Playboy bunny with his brand. The

1:00:16

idea that he would be with a porn

1:00:18

actress was part of his brand. It's part

1:00:21

of what made people like him. And

1:00:23

so the idea that somebody who was

1:00:25

Mr. Babes and Bucks on the

1:00:27

cover of The Inquirer was so

1:00:30

afraid that Melania, his third wife

1:00:32

who was pregnant with his fifth

1:00:34

child from three baby mamas, would

1:00:36

be so terrified that poor Melania

1:00:39

would be shot in a pole that

1:00:41

he might have been sleeping with Playboy bunnies and

1:00:44

porn actresses that he was so fearful that she

1:00:46

would be hurt. Chris, it would hurt

1:00:48

her feelings and that he had

1:00:50

to do a hush money to save her.

1:00:54

Nobody's gonna believe that. Nobody

1:00:56

with any sense is going to believe it. But then she would

1:00:58

no longer feel bad as soon as the election was over.

1:01:00

And then it's just like, get over it. I

1:01:03

think it's over. I think it's over. I think it's okay

1:01:05

then. None of it makes sense. And so the problem for Trump

1:01:07

is, I have to say that Lawrence actually kind of stole my

1:01:09

thing that I was going to say. You can

1:01:11

tell that his attorney, Mr. Blanche,

1:01:14

who I feel tremendous pity for at this

1:01:16

point, was not doing the case he would

1:01:18

do if he had the freedom

1:01:20

to do his case his way. Because

1:01:22

he comes in doing things that the lawyers I had on

1:01:24

my show earlier were saying are just unusual. Saying,

1:01:26

my client is totally innocent. My client is going

1:01:29

to be called Mr. President because he's owed that.

1:01:31

My client is a tremendous businessman and handsome and

1:01:33

exciting and wonderful. Like the things he's doing were

1:01:35

things Trump wanted him to do. But

1:01:38

this piece sounded like something he would normally

1:01:40

do for a normal client. He's just

1:01:42

a guy like you. You need to relate to

1:01:44

him. Donald Trump ran for office not to be relatable,

1:01:46

but to be larger than life. Yes, yes, yes. Alex.

1:01:49

It's good to be here. But do you

1:01:52

have a wire quote? Because now we have to go through it. I

1:01:54

know why. Oh my God. I

1:01:56

see any of your elbow from any of your serialized

1:01:58

television show quote from a show that that has

1:02:00

many episodes. Can I just say

1:02:02

none of this is normal? No aspect of

1:02:04

what we are witnessing is normal. Number one,

1:02:06

for all journalism students out there, checkbook journalism,

1:02:08

not a thing. It is not a thing.

1:02:11

Also, what is inside the magazine also matters.

1:02:13

I'm just gonna say as someone who has

1:02:15

many stories published, very few of which have

1:02:17

been on the cover, I think it matters.

1:02:19

Just putting that out there. The

1:02:21

strategy from Trump's team, at least as

1:02:23

I understood it today, seems to be

1:02:25

to normalize outlandish things, which is keeping

1:02:28

in tandem with what Donald

1:02:30

Trump has done to this country, which

1:02:32

is to normalize the abhorrent and abnormal.

1:02:34

I was really struck, not only by

1:02:36

this sort of, the pecker of

1:02:38

it all. I'm sorry to have you saying the word pecker.

1:02:41

But at one point, at

1:02:43

one point, I

1:02:45

think you're right. We're

1:02:48

like the people in the room. When everyone says pecker. My nurse

1:02:50

called me from the front. I was like, is she having an

1:02:52

outbreak? I'm just top like. Day 25

1:02:54

of pecker. The

1:02:57

arguing that NDAs are just a common

1:02:59

practice, that lots of wealthy people do

1:03:02

them. This is nothing abnormal. Everybody has

1:03:04

NDAs. You guys might not have

1:03:06

heard about them before, but it happens. This

1:03:08

is a thing that is done. Just because

1:03:11

Trump had a bunch of people signing NDAs

1:03:13

doesn't mean there's anything to suspect about that.

1:03:15

Catch and kill. It happens all the time.

1:03:17

There's nothing illegal about this scheme. This sort

1:03:19

of thing happens all the time. This is

1:03:21

from Todd Blanchard's mouth to the jury. And

1:03:24

then my favorite, there is nothing wrong with

1:03:26

trying to influence an election. It's

1:03:28

called democracy. That is

1:03:30

not how the world works, Todd Blanchard. That

1:03:32

is maybe the argument they're gonna use because

1:03:35

time and time again, telling the American public

1:03:37

over and over again, there's nothing to see

1:03:39

here. I mean, look, he

1:03:42

had impeachments one and two. He didn't get

1:03:44

convicted. And I think that they believe if

1:03:46

you just keep telling people, this is just

1:03:49

how it works. Maybe they

1:03:51

can get away with it. The

1:03:53

difference between then and now is this is

1:03:56

a criminal trial and you are held to

1:03:58

a different standard. But I was flabbergasted. that

1:04:00

this is the best they could come

1:04:02

up with when faced with a lot

1:04:04

of material from the prosecution. I

1:04:08

also think what's happening here too is

1:04:10

you're seeing

1:04:12

that what's also not

1:04:14

normal is somebody like AMI and

1:04:17

David Pecker and Dylan Howard having

1:04:19

to get immunity. Because

1:04:21

if it's okay to do all of this

1:04:23

and journalism, why would you need immunity from

1:04:27

prosecution? Why would

1:04:29

Michael Cohen go to prison? If

1:04:31

all of this is normal and all of

1:04:33

this is totally kosher, I guess it's passed

1:04:35

over, then there shouldn't

1:04:37

be anything wrong with this. Donald

1:04:41

Trump shouldn't be prosecuted. That

1:04:43

just shows how Donald Trump

1:04:45

has turned normal

1:04:49

or abnormal into normal. How he's

1:04:51

normalized. On the point of

1:04:53

the kind of journalism that AMI does, today

1:04:56

when David Pecker was on the stand, he is

1:04:58

the one who volunteered the phrase checkbook journalism. He

1:05:00

is describing this of his own accord. This is

1:05:02

what we do. We pay for sources. National

1:05:05

Enquirer has no shame about this. AMI has no shame about

1:05:07

this. This is what they do. But

1:05:13

they do sometimes with people other than Donald

1:05:15

Trump find out negative information

1:05:17

about a person and then

1:05:19

decide not to run it. And why do they do that?

1:05:22

Because they want to have that person consent

1:05:24

to be on their magazine covers for other

1:05:26

reasons. They want to own them. They've done

1:05:28

this about Cosby. They

1:05:30

had a bunch of bad information about him.

1:05:32

They did not run it in exchange for

1:05:35

Cosby then doing exclusives with them. They had a

1:05:37

bunch of bad information on Arnold Schwarzenegger. Did not

1:05:39

run it in exchange for Schwarzenegger doing a bunch

1:05:41

of stuff with them. There's claims in the New

1:05:43

York Times that I had not seen before this

1:05:45

weekend that they had done the same thing with

1:05:47

Tiger Woods. They wanted Tiger Woods to do things.

1:05:50

He sold magazines. So they held the information they

1:05:52

had on him. So they've done this vague

1:05:54

pattern, this big scale pattern with other

1:05:56

people. The differences when they did it

1:05:59

with Donald Trump. They only did

1:06:01

it when it came to the election Prosecutors

1:06:04

said today in their opening statement They

1:06:06

had never before paid anybody for any

1:06:08

information related to Donald Trump and when

1:06:10

it came to Keeping Donald Trump

1:06:12

on the good side what that what that

1:06:14

meant what that keeping Trump happy What

1:06:17

were they paying to make all these stories go

1:06:19

away for it wasn't to get Donald Trump exclusives

1:06:21

in their magazine It was to help Donald Trump

1:06:23

win the election and that is when it became a crime

1:06:26

That is why am I had to get limited immunity

1:06:28

that is why Donald that is why Michael Cohen

1:06:30

had to go to prison Because they weren't just trying

1:06:32

to keep him happy the way they were trying

1:06:35

to keep Cosby and entire woods happy They were

1:06:37

trying to keep him happy by making him president

1:06:39

Yeah, right and because there's also a different regulatory

1:06:41

structure that guides American elections. That's the key thing

1:06:46

And the reason I mean it is strange right

1:06:49

at one level because like the the

1:06:51

covers you showed Yeah,

1:06:53

that is you know to the point about

1:06:55

like influencing elections called democracy like You

1:06:58

can have like your best homie running a magazine and he

1:07:00

just puts you on the cover every day get you elected

1:07:02

Like that is actually America. But that's

1:07:04

that is perfectly fine. And that's been

1:07:06

happening since the founders It's

1:07:10

the fact that this was explicitly

1:07:12

a campaign undertaking That

1:07:14

was designed that that couldn't be disclosed

1:07:17

along the lines as campaign expenditures are

1:07:19

regulated That is turned into a crime

1:07:21

and where the rubber hits the road

1:07:24

to back the Weisselberg note is they

1:07:27

if it weren't that they Could have just

1:07:29

written the reimbursement check. Mm-hmm. Yeah And

1:07:32

it would it would be clean but it wouldn't be but again

1:07:34

Then it would have been a campaign expense or or

1:07:36

so, you know So the point is that

1:07:38

when they get down to like the nitty-gritty of who's

1:07:40

paying this for what reason they have to lie in

1:07:42

A legal way about it because they have run afoul

1:07:44

of it I will say one thing that I still

1:07:46

don't quite get and I've read run in Pharaoh's book

1:07:49

on this is like What

1:07:51

was pecker? Yeah, like I just don't

1:07:53

like he's just that loyal a

1:07:55

dude. He loves Donald Trump that much He's

1:07:58

gonna have access to the president. I say So

1:08:00

the defense counsel today, one of the stranger things

1:08:02

that he said in his opening argument today

1:08:13

was watch David Packer's testimony very

1:08:15

carefully. David Packer is not his witness. He

1:08:18

said, David Packer may not say

1:08:20

what these prosecutors are telling you he's going to

1:08:22

say, because David Packer, he's implying,

1:08:24

is going to testify likely tomorrow

1:08:26

or, you know, maybe later in the

1:08:28

week. David Packer is likely going

1:08:30

to testify that the reason he was motivated to do this

1:08:32

is because he wanted to keep Donald Trump happy. He wanted

1:08:35

to keep Donald Trump happy because he wanted to keep Donald

1:08:37

Trump doing things with their papers and

1:08:39

their publications because he sold and he was

1:08:41

good for them. The problem is that's

1:08:44

OK if the way you're trying to keep Donald

1:08:46

Trump happy is just doing the normal checkbook journalism

1:08:48

that you do. If the way you're trying to

1:08:50

keep him happy is by doing things

1:08:52

to affect the campaign, then that whole regulatory

1:08:54

structure you're talking about is implicated. You

1:08:57

can't get through any of this without

1:08:59

answering the question, why did Michael Cohen go

1:09:01

to jail? Because they're trying to spend a

1:09:04

lot of time in teaching him, right? But

1:09:06

he was prosecuted by the Trump era

1:09:08

Justice Department by the Southern District of

1:09:11

New York under the Trump regime.

1:09:13

It was during when Trump was arrested. So

1:09:16

what did he do wrong? And you go back and

1:09:18

you say, well, he's going to be impeached because he's

1:09:20

a criminal. When did he become a criminal? He never

1:09:22

committed crimes before 2015, 2016. He

1:09:26

gets a campaign email. He

1:09:29

suddenly has a campaign email. He's his personal

1:09:31

lawyer. Why does he have a Trump campaign

1:09:33

email? Then he goes into the he then

1:09:35

gets prosecuted and Donald Trump is an unindicted

1:09:37

co-conspirator in that. What did he go to

1:09:39

jail for? What did he do that was

1:09:41

criminal? He went and took out a loan

1:09:43

because he didn't have the money to himself

1:09:45

be a rich pal of Trump and just

1:09:47

give a hundred and thirty thousand dollars to a woman

1:09:49

he hadn't slept with. So he didn't have the

1:09:52

money. So he had to go and get a loan.

1:09:54

He lied to the mortgage company to get the loan

1:09:56

because he under he didn't qualify for the loan. He

1:09:58

then takes that alone and has to commit. mortgage

1:10:00

fraud to get the money, give the money, not

1:10:02

even to Donald Trump, but give it to this

1:10:04

third party he never slept with and doesn't even

1:10:06

necessarily know. Why would he do

1:10:09

that? And so the problem is everything they

1:10:11

want to say about Michael Cohen is only

1:10:13

true about Michael Cohen because of Donald Trump.

1:10:15

Because he doesn't benefit from it and because

1:10:17

of the thing he was working for that

1:10:19

wasn't even his job. He was a

1:10:21

fixer who's helping with the election. Can I ask one quick

1:10:23

question, a legal one, which floats around? I

1:10:27

don't have the answer to this question. I keep wondering,

1:10:29

was there a way to lawyer this properly? Was

1:10:33

there a way to say, we've got a problem

1:10:35

here. We're all assembled. We're

1:10:38

in the command room. We got these women who make

1:10:40

these accusations. We don't want this to get out. How

1:10:43

do we lawyer this so that we're not committing a crime?

1:10:45

Obviously they weren't thinking that way because that's not the way

1:10:48

they think. They've just got all this sketchiness and there's just

1:10:50

these people that love to roll around

1:10:52

in dirt. They just love it.

1:10:54

They love to be like, it's all dirty.

1:10:58

It's like catching kill. I'm writing you

1:11:00

a check. All this nonsense in the

1:11:02

book. I'm saying, what would the super

1:11:04

professionally lawyered version of this look like

1:11:06

and could you lawyer it successfully such

1:11:09

that you were not committing a crime?

1:11:11

There is no super professional version. You

1:11:13

don't create LLCs to be

1:11:15

able to funnel money unless

1:11:17

you're funneling money. Lawyers

1:11:19

just don't do that. That is actually a risk

1:11:21

for Donald Trump because you have two lawyers on

1:11:23

this jury, which I know some people think is

1:11:25

a liability for the prosecution. These

1:11:27

are corporate lawyers, none of whom

1:11:29

are creating LLCs and other states

1:11:32

to hide ownership to be

1:11:34

able to funnel money on behalf of a presidential

1:11:36

candidate. That's not how normal lawyers operate. So there

1:11:38

really is no clean way of doing this. The

1:11:40

only way would have been a straight reimbursement, which

1:11:42

we know didn't happen. Right. Couldn't

1:11:44

he push that? If

1:11:47

the NDAs happen all the time, I would

1:11:49

disagree with Donald Trump's theory on this.

1:11:51

NDAs happen all the time, but you're not

1:11:54

doing it for that purpose. So right. But

1:11:56

you're not doing it with the explicit purpose of

1:11:58

a campaign. Right. again, to just I

1:12:00

want to hammer on this, right? Because the reason these

1:12:03

things come up against each other is because the regulatory

1:12:05

evidence edifice over a campaign requires a

1:12:07

level of disclosure that then let's

1:12:09

pat out of the bag. Although again,

1:12:11

if you had a super PAC who

1:12:14

bought it, like again, things have gotten

1:12:16

so screwed up in that world, like,

1:12:18

but the point being that if you'd

1:12:20

written the check, I guess

1:12:22

I kept when I was watching it, I was like, why

1:12:25

didn't they just have when they were going through the math?

1:12:27

I have the thought of like, this guy is cheap. Why

1:12:29

didn't they just be like here and just like don't don't

1:12:32

report his income and like maybe no one will notice the

1:12:34

money. Right?

1:12:36

No, I mean, there's I think there's ways to do

1:12:38

it that are less getting yelled at

1:12:40

by Idris Elba and the wire, right? I think there's

1:12:42

ways to do it that are less like taking notes

1:12:45

on a criminal conspiracy. But I think that

1:12:47

the nut of it is there's a

1:12:49

criminal intention here. That's what I'm getting at.

1:12:51

And so you can make it prettier and less

1:12:53

sorted and less dirty. But you're still committing a

1:12:55

crime. That's my that's what I'm trying to because

1:12:57

you're running for president. You can't do that when

1:13:00

you're running for president. Exactly. And the fact that

1:13:02

they didn't do this for Trump when he wasn't

1:13:04

running for president is the giveaway. All right, much

1:13:06

more to come on our coverage, our prime time

1:13:08

recap of the Trump criminal trial today in New

1:13:10

York. We'll be right back. Welcome

1:13:32

back to our prime time recap of

1:13:34

the criminal court proceedings against former President

1:13:36

Donald Trump today. Trump's lawyer,

1:13:38

defense counsel Todd Blanche was in the middle

1:13:41

of his opening statements today when

1:13:43

something unusual happened. Todd

1:13:45

Blanche, Trump defense counsel quote Michael Cohen,

1:13:47

pain stormy Daniels or Stephanie

1:13:49

Clifford, $130,000 in exchange for

1:13:53

her agreeing to not publicly

1:13:55

spread false false claims about

1:13:57

President Trump is not illegal.

1:14:00

to say that again, entering into a

1:14:02

non-disclosure agreement, prosecutor,

1:14:04

objection, judge, sustained.

1:14:08

Mr. Blanche, entering into a

1:14:10

non-disclosure agreement is perfectly legal. Prosecution,

1:14:13

objection, the judge overruled.

1:14:17

Mr. Blanche then continues on for a moment, then

1:14:20

it happens again pretty much right away. Todd Blanche,

1:14:22

when Ms. Daniels threatened to go public with her

1:14:24

false claim of a sexual encounter with President Trump

1:14:26

back in 2008, that it was, as

1:14:29

the people just said, very close to the election,

1:14:31

and it was almost an attempt by Ms. Clifford,

1:14:33

Ms. Daniels to extort President Trump,

1:14:35

prosecutor, objection, judge,

1:14:38

sustained. Blanche

1:14:40

then tries to keep going, but then a moment later,

1:14:42

Mr. Blanche, again,

1:14:44

entering into an agreement with

1:14:46

another individual, you'll hear this agreement

1:14:49

was negotiated by lawyers, prosecutor, objection.

1:14:52

Now at this point, Judge Marchand does not even

1:14:54

rule on the objection. He doesn't say sustained,

1:14:56

doesn't say overruled. He instead calls

1:14:59

lawyers from both sides up

1:15:01

to the bench. Please approach. The

1:15:04

lawyers and the judge then confer, and then

1:15:07

the judge rules. Judge, the objection is sustained.

1:15:10

Then Mr. Blanche, Trump's lawyer, moves on to

1:15:12

another topic. But he makes it

1:15:14

just three further pages into the transcript when the

1:15:16

whole thing starts all over again. This time, it's

1:15:19

over a mention of Michael Cohen. Todd Blanche,

1:15:21

Trump's defense counsel, quotes, separately from his

1:15:23

obsession with President Trump and his obsession

1:15:25

to get President Trump, on multiple occasions, Michael

1:15:27

Cohen has testified under oath and lied, prosecutor,

1:15:30

objection, judge, sustained. Blanche,

1:15:34

he's walked into a courtroom

1:15:36

very near here, raised his right

1:15:38

hand and swore to tell the truth, and

1:15:41

now he will tell you, I expect that

1:15:43

he was lying, prosecutor, objection, judge, sustained. And

1:15:47

for a second time, the judge calls up the

1:15:49

lawyers from both sides to the bench. To the

1:15:51

bench, counsel, please approach. And

1:15:54

a second time, he upholds the objection. Judge

1:15:56

Marchand, the objection is sustained. I.

1:16:01

Was in the court when the string

1:16:03

of objections happens in the middle of

1:16:05

Trump's teams opening statements both sides getting

1:16:07

repeatedly hold up before the judge said

1:16:09

reporter asked me the lawyer having to

1:16:11

restart when he was saying try to

1:16:13

find. His momentum again picked back up

1:16:15

to me. As a lay person, it

1:16:17

seemed dramatic and strange. But.

1:16:20

I want to ask our lawyers hear how rare

1:16:22

is it for objections to be made during opening.

1:16:24

Statements: How rare is it for

1:16:26

the judge to interrupt opening statements

1:16:29

with multiple directions? To the lawyers including the

1:16:31

one making the opening same as I got it from up

1:16:33

to the bench doctor, the drugs. Why?

1:16:35

Are these objections made? What does this tell us

1:16:37

about the trial and about the defense that Trump's

1:16:39

lawyer is trying to make? Luckily joining us now

1:16:41

is Lisa Rubin for was at the courthouse today

1:16:44

in the overflow room. Lisa of I understand that

1:16:46

part of your sacrifice today was allowing me to

1:16:48

be in the courtroom and a seat that you

1:16:50

might otherwise have had your but in so I

1:16:52

know and I'm aca fi I am very grateful

1:16:54

and I hereby bequeath back to your. I.

1:16:57

Like thing for you. Actually in some ways in

1:16:59

the of us an overflow might have had as

1:17:01

a slightly better view of this than I did

1:17:03

sitting. At the back of the courtroom, watching it sort

1:17:05

of down the aisles. what was happening there and how

1:17:07

weird was it? So it was weird,

1:17:10

not just because there was one objection,

1:17:12

but because of how many their work

1:17:14

relative to the brevity of Top Lenses.

1:17:16

Opening Statement: Let's start with the fact

1:17:18

that Top Lynch was an experience prosecutor

1:17:20

and the Southern District of New York.

1:17:22

But what he's not As an experienced

1:17:24

defense lawyers we learned today from New

1:17:27

York Magazine something that confirms something that

1:17:29

I suspected which is that publicist right?

1:17:31

Exactly One trial as defense council and

1:17:33

the last decade and honest, fairly narrow

1:17:35

issue. And if you were just in

1:17:37

that courtroom and probably. Would have expected

1:17:39

as much because has flown with interrupted

1:17:41

so many times by these frequent objections

1:17:44

and the sidebars. Now that having been

1:17:46

said, rachel I think a number of

1:17:48

the things that he did today we're

1:17:50

perfectly intentional because while they were objected

1:17:52

to any objections were sustained, he still

1:17:54

planted the seeds of doubt in the

1:17:56

jurors my as and in particular for

1:17:59

example, when he. That that's to me

1:18:01

Daniel Mean. Donald. Trump, a victim

1:18:03

of extortion. That was immediately objected to

1:18:05

and sustained because that among other things as

1:18:07

a legal conclusion there was now prosecution for

1:18:10

example of for me, Daniel Forte distorting Donald

1:18:12

Trump he would have known in advance. The

1:18:14

judge was not going to allow him to get away with. Saying I

1:18:16

think that's probably right, but there are

1:18:19

other objections were incessantly new and I

1:18:21

think the place where he definitely near

1:18:23

with when he talks about what I'll

1:18:25

call the diet advice of Counsel defense

1:18:28

where he essentially sad trombone means that

1:18:30

these nondisclosure agreements were totally kosher because

1:18:32

he had attorneys negotiating months for hims.

1:18:34

That's an issue that's already been litigated

1:18:36

as part of the parties motions eliminate

1:18:39

which arcs, the advanced arguments about which

1:18:41

evidence can and can't com, and taglines

1:18:43

new when he walked in the courtroom

1:18:45

this morning. That that was not going to

1:18:48

be an argument allowed because he was trying

1:18:50

to use the attorney client privilege as a

1:18:52

sword and shield. essentially says my client relied

1:18:54

on lawyer's advice, but we're not going to

1:18:56

tell you what that advice was. And just

1:18:58

like Judge Copland data and the same beef

1:19:00

and fried case in fact, does Marshawn say

1:19:02

that that ruling and making his own, I'm

1:19:05

not gonna let your client do that. There

1:19:07

is no advice of counsel. Light and yet.

1:19:09

That's. Where blanche? So when. I'm I'm

1:19:11

going to given instruction now. That nobody

1:19:13

knows this coming and I know it's going to make everybody

1:19:15

move around. I'd like to talk to come from Christian if

1:19:18

I could farm. She's on his side of the room and

1:19:20

lots of cameras up to move. I really feel I've learned

1:19:22

to make. The fossil I got or they

1:19:24

give you have experience in. The New

1:19:26

York from near sisters from his

1:19:28

office on the the What What

1:19:30

Lisa describing hear about about Mr.

1:19:32

Bush's relative inexperience doing this kind

1:19:35

of lawyering in this kind of

1:19:37

the case. Or is one

1:19:39

piece of perspective. Here is perspective.

1:19:41

Here is what's normal and in

1:19:43

New York the a criminal proceeding

1:19:46

like this. When these interruptions. These

1:19:48

objections happened during the opening statements

1:19:50

here from the defense. Out of

1:19:52

that strike you, it's not unusual.

1:19:54

Andrew and I will probably have

1:19:57

different experience. Near. Stay court is

1:19:59

not as day. as federal court.

1:20:01

So it's not shocking and defense

1:20:04

attorneys, some of them pride themselves

1:20:06

on stepping on the line. So

1:20:08

you know, I hit object when

1:20:10

I was a prosecutor because they stepped on

1:20:12

the line. And as Lisa said, Oh, oopsie,

1:20:16

the jury heard what he

1:20:18

said. So it's in their head. So

1:20:20

this I can't say it happens all the time, but

1:20:23

it's not shocking. I rarely objected

1:20:25

as a prosecutor because I didn't want the

1:20:27

jury to think that I was trying to

1:20:29

hide something from the Mars afraid. Here I

1:20:31

would have objected because he was clearly saying

1:20:33

things he shouldn't have in the judge already

1:20:35

ruled against. But it's not shocking, at least

1:20:37

not in the world of 100 Cent the

1:20:39

street in New York County. And let

1:20:42

me ask you about something Katie Fanks said earlier,

1:20:44

where she said that, you know, in the minds

1:20:46

of the jury, Mr. Blanche

1:20:48

might have not done himself

1:20:50

favors with all of those, those

1:20:52

statements being objected to today and all those interruptions,

1:20:54

because the jury might have thought even if those

1:20:56

seeds were planted in their minds by things

1:20:58

he wasn't supposed to say that he nevertheless

1:21:01

had them here, they at least would think

1:21:03

that he was doing something wrong by being

1:21:05

essentially sort of mini sanctioned by the judge

1:21:07

in that way and interrupted in a slow.

1:21:09

No, and the judges struck the jury

1:21:11

about objections and not to take them

1:21:14

against the defense attorney or the prosecutor.

1:21:17

I have heard a quitting

1:21:19

juries talk about how

1:21:21

they liked how that defense attorney really

1:21:23

fought for their client. So I don't

1:21:25

think you could read into, oh, it's

1:21:28

sustained. The jury is going to think very bad.

1:21:30

I think, as Lisa just said,

1:21:32

there was a tactic. He

1:21:34

knew that these were objectionable things he was

1:21:37

saying and they were objected

1:21:39

to. But it already, you can't unring

1:21:41

the bell is what you usually say.

1:21:43

It came out the jury and prosecutors

1:21:46

cannot appeal and acquittal. Much

1:21:49

more of our special prime time recap of today's

1:21:51

opening statements in the New York trial against Donald

1:21:53

Trump when we come back. What

1:22:11

an actual Time Zone? Recap: Of the

1:22:13

Criminal Court proceedings against former President Donald.

1:22:15

Trump. Today Trump's lawyer defense

1:22:18

counsel.pod last. Was in the middle

1:22:20

of his opening statement Saturday when something

1:22:22

unusual. Happens Todd Glass Trump Defense

1:22:24

Counsel Quote: Michael. Cohen paying

1:22:26

Stormy Daniels. Or Stephanie Clifford one

1:22:29

hundred thirty thousand dollars in exchange.

1:22:31

For her green to not publicly

1:22:33

spread false, false claims about President

1:22:35

Trump is not illegal. I'm going

1:22:38

to say that again, entering into

1:22:40

a nondisclosure agreement. Prosecutor.

1:22:43

Objection: Judge sustains.

1:22:46

Mr. Blanche, entering into a

1:22:49

nondisclosure. Agreement is perfectly legal.

1:22:51

Prosecution. Objection: The

1:22:53

judge overrules. Supplants.

1:22:56

Than continues on for a moment. That happens

1:22:58

again pretty much right away. Todd Glass When

1:23:00

is Daniel threatened to go public with her

1:23:02

false claim of. A sexual encounter with President Trump

1:23:04

back in two thousand and. Eight. That it

1:23:07

was, as the people just said, very close to

1:23:09

the election and it was almost an attempt by

1:23:11

Ms. Clifford Ms. Daniels. To extort President

1:23:13

Trump prosecutor objection. Judge

1:23:16

sustained. Blanche. Then

1:23:18

tries to keep. Going but than a moment

1:23:21

later, The. Splash again

1:23:23

entering. Into an agreement with another

1:23:25

individual, you'll hear. This agreement was

1:23:27

negotiated by lawyers prosecutor Objection: Analysis

1:23:31

Point Judge machine does not even rule

1:23:33

on the objection he doesn't say sustained

1:23:35

of until the rule of instead calls.

1:23:37

Lawyers from both sides up

1:23:39

to the bench. Please approach.

1:23:43

To. Lawyers and the judge them confer and

1:23:45

then the judge rules judge. The objection

1:23:47

is sustained. Said. Mr.

1:23:49

Blanche Tom Sawyer moves on to another topic,

1:23:51

but he makes it just three further pages

1:23:53

into the transcripts when the whole thing starts

1:23:56

all over. again this time it's over a

1:23:58

mention of michael cohen side bless Trump's

1:24:00

defense counsel quote, separately from his obsession with

1:24:02

President Trump and his obsession to get President

1:24:04

Trump, on multiple occasions, Michael Cohen

1:24:06

has testified under oath and lied. Prosecutor,

1:24:09

objection. Judge, sustained. Blanche.

1:24:12

He walked, he's walked into a courtroom

1:24:15

very near here, raised his right

1:24:17

hand and swore to tell the truth, and now he

1:24:19

will tell you, I expect, that he was lying. Prosecutor,

1:24:22

objection. Judge, sustained. And

1:24:25

then for a second time, the judge calls up

1:24:27

the lawyers for both sides to the bench. To

1:24:30

the bench, counsel, please approach. And

1:24:32

a second time, he upholds the objection. Judge

1:24:35

Marchand, the objection is sustained. I

1:24:39

was in the court when this string

1:24:41

of objections happened in the middle of

1:24:44

Trump's team's opening statements. Both sides

1:24:46

getting repeatedly hauled up before the judge, the

1:24:48

reporter, excuse me, the lawyer, having to restart

1:24:50

what he was saying, try to find his

1:24:52

momentum again, pick back up. To

1:24:54

me, as a layperson, it seemed dramatic

1:24:56

and strange. But I

1:24:59

wanna ask our lawyers here, how rare is

1:25:01

it for objections to be made during opening

1:25:03

statements? How rare is it for the judge to

1:25:05

interrupt opening statements with multiple directions

1:25:07

to the lawyers, including the one

1:25:10

making the opening statement, that they gotta come up to the

1:25:12

bench and talk to the judge? Why

1:25:14

were these objections made? What does this tell us about

1:25:16

the trial and about the defense that Trump's lawyer is

1:25:18

trying to make? Luckily, joining us now is Lisa Rubin,

1:25:20

who was at the courthouse today in the overflow room.

1:25:23

Lisa, I understand that part of your sacrifice today was

1:25:25

allowing me to be in the courtroom in a seat

1:25:27

that you might otherwise have had your butt in. So

1:25:29

I owe you and I'm very grateful. And

1:25:32

I hereby bequeath back to you. Thank

1:25:35

you, I think. Well, you actually,

1:25:37

in some ways in the overflow room, might've

1:25:39

had a slightly better view of this than I did

1:25:42

sitting at the back of the courtroom watching it sort

1:25:44

of down the aisle. What was happening there

1:25:46

and how weird was it? So it was

1:25:48

weird, not just because there was one

1:25:50

objection, but because of how many there

1:25:52

were relative to the brevity of Todd

1:25:54

Blanche's opening statement. Let's start with the

1:25:56

fact that Todd Blanche was an experienced

1:25:58

prosecutor in the Southern District. of New

1:26:00

York, but what he's not is an

1:26:02

experienced defense lawyer. We learned today from

1:26:04

New York magazine something that confirms something

1:26:07

that I suspected, which is that Todd

1:26:09

Blanche has tried exactly one trial as

1:26:11

defense counsel in the last decade and

1:26:13

on a fairly narrow issue. And if

1:26:15

you were just in that courtroom, you

1:26:17

probably would have expected as much because

1:26:19

his flow was interrupted so many times

1:26:21

by these frequent objections and the sidebars.

1:26:23

Now that having been said, Rachel, I

1:26:26

think a number of the things that

1:26:28

he did today were perfectly intentional because

1:26:30

while they were objected to and the objections

1:26:32

were sustained, he still planted the seeds of

1:26:34

doubt in the jurors' minds. And

1:26:37

in particular, for example, when he said that

1:26:39

Stormy Daniels made Donald Trump

1:26:41

a victim of extortion, that was immediately

1:26:43

objected to and sustained because that, among others

1:26:45

things, is a legal conclusion. There was no

1:26:47

prosecution, for example, of Stormy Daniels for

1:26:49

extorting Donald Trump. And he would have known

1:26:52

in advance that the judge was not going to allow him to

1:26:54

get away with saying that. I think that's probably right.

1:26:57

There are other objections where he definitely knew.

1:27:00

And I think the place where he

1:27:02

definitely knew was when he talked about

1:27:04

what I'll call the diet advice of

1:27:06

counsel defense, where he essentially said Trump

1:27:09

believed that these nondisclosure agreements were totally

1:27:11

kosher because he had attorneys negotiating them

1:27:13

for him. That's an issue

1:27:15

that's already been litigated as part of the

1:27:17

party's motions in limine, which are the advanced

1:27:19

arguments about which evidence can and can't come

1:27:21

in. Todd Blanche knew when he walked in

1:27:23

the courtroom this morning that that was not

1:27:26

going to be an argument allowed because he

1:27:28

was trying to use the attorney-client privilege as

1:27:30

a sword and a shield, essentially saying, my

1:27:32

client relied on lawyer's advice, but we're not

1:27:34

going to tell you what that advice was.

1:27:37

And just like Judge Kaplan did in the

1:27:39

Sandbank-Bainfried case, in fact, Judge Marchand cited that

1:27:41

ruling in making his own, I'm not going

1:27:43

to let your client do that. There is

1:27:45

no advice of counsel light, and yet that's

1:27:48

where Blanche still went. I'm

1:27:50

going to give an instruction now that nobody knows

1:27:52

is coming, and I know it's going to make everybody move around,

1:27:54

but I'd like to talk to Katherine Christian, if I could. She's

1:27:57

on the other side of the room, and lots of cameras have to move.

1:28:00

in order to make this possible. Hi, Catherine, thank you. You

1:28:03

have experience in the New York District

1:28:05

Attorney's office. What

1:28:08

Lisa is describing here about Mr.

1:28:10

Balanch's relative and experience doing this

1:28:13

kind of lawyering in this kind

1:28:15

of a case is

1:28:17

one piece of perspective here. Another piece of

1:28:19

perspective here is what's normal in

1:28:21

a New York DA criminal proceeding

1:28:24

like this. When these interruptions,

1:28:26

these objections happened during

1:28:28

the opening statements here from

1:28:30

the defense. How did that strike

1:28:32

you? It's not unusual. Andrew and I will

1:28:35

probably have different experience. New

1:28:37

York State Court is not as dainty as

1:28:39

federal court. So it's not

1:28:41

shocking. And defense attorneys, some of them

1:28:43

pride themselves on stepping on the

1:28:46

line. So I hit object

1:28:49

when I was a prosecutor because they stepped on

1:28:51

the line. And as Lisa

1:28:53

said, oopsie, the jury heard

1:28:56

what he said. So it's in their head. So

1:28:59

this, I can't say it happens all the time, but

1:29:01

it's not shocking. I rarely objected

1:29:04

as a prosecutor because I didn't want the jury

1:29:06

to think that I was trying to hide something

1:29:08

from the more I was afraid. Here I would

1:29:10

have objected because he was clearly saying things he

1:29:12

shouldn't have and the judge already ruled against. But

1:29:15

it's not shocking, at least not in the world

1:29:17

of 100 Center Street in New York County. And

1:29:19

Catherine, let me ask you about something Katie

1:29:21

Fang said earlier where she said that in

1:29:24

the minds of the jury, Mr.

1:29:26

Blanche might have not done

1:29:28

himself favors with all of those statements being

1:29:31

objected to today and all those interruptions. Because

1:29:33

the jury might have thought, even if those

1:29:35

seeds were planted in their minds by things

1:29:37

he wasn't supposed to say that he nevertheless

1:29:39

had them here, they at least would think

1:29:41

that he was doing something wrong by being

1:29:43

essentially mini sanctioned by the judge in that

1:29:46

way and interrupted in a slow. No,

1:29:48

and the judge instruct the jury about

1:29:50

objections and not to take them against

1:29:53

the defense attorney or the prosecutor. I

1:29:56

have heard acquitting juries talk

1:29:59

about how they look. liked how that defense

1:30:01

attorney really fought for their client. So

1:30:03

I don't think you could read into,

1:30:05

oh, it's sustained. The jury is going

1:30:07

to think very bad. I think, as

1:30:10

Lisa just said, there was a tactic. He

1:30:13

knew that these were objectionable things he

1:30:15

was saying, and they were

1:30:17

objected to. But you can't unring the

1:30:19

bell is what you usually say. It

1:30:22

came out to the jury. And prosecutors

1:30:24

cannot appeal an acquittal. Much

1:30:28

more of our special primetime recap of today's opening

1:30:30

statements in the New York trial against Donald Trump

1:30:32

when we come back. So

1:30:49

under an order imposed by the

1:30:51

court in this criminal case, Donald

1:30:54

Trump is not allowed to make

1:30:56

or direct others to make public

1:30:58

statements about known or reasonably

1:31:01

foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential

1:31:03

participation in the investigation or

1:31:05

in this criminal proceeding. He's

1:31:08

not allowed to do that. Prosecution

1:31:10

is now arguing that Trump has done

1:31:12

that a lot. There'll be a hearing

1:31:15

tomorrow morning at 930 Eastern before the

1:31:17

jurors come into the courtroom. Prosecutors

1:31:20

are going to ask the judge to

1:31:22

find that former President Trump willfully violated

1:31:24

the gag order by attacking well-known potential

1:31:26

witnesses, including Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen,

1:31:29

attacking their credibility on up to 10

1:31:31

separate occasions. If

1:31:33

the judge finds Trump in criminal

1:31:35

contempt of court on these matters,

1:31:38

Trump could be fined up to $1,000 each for each violation. That's

1:31:42

what prosecutors are asking for. He

1:31:44

could possibly be sentenced to a maximum of

1:31:46

30 days in jail, although prosecutors are certainly

1:31:48

not asking for that yet. I

1:31:51

mean, tonight Trump sent around

1:31:53

a fundraising email called My

1:31:55

Farewell Message, making it sound

1:31:57

like he's definitely going to jail. I

1:32:01

already meant to ask our legal experts about

1:32:03

it, but we just queued up some new sound from

1:32:05

Donald Trump today. This is from an

1:32:07

interview on a conservative network called

1:32:10

Real America's Voice. Here it is Donald

1:32:13

Trump talking about the jury in his

1:32:15

trial. That

1:32:18

jury was picked so fast. 95%

1:32:21

Democrats, the area

1:32:24

is mostly all Democrat. You think of

1:32:26

it as just a purely Democrat area.

1:32:29

It's a very unfair situation that I can tell

1:32:31

you. That jury, 95%

1:32:33

Democrats. Again,

1:32:36

the last item in the gag order

1:32:38

forbids Trump from making or directing others

1:32:40

to make public statements about any prospective

1:32:42

juror or any juror

1:32:44

in this criminal proceeding. Andrew

1:32:47

Weissman still with

1:32:50

us here tonight. The gag order

1:32:52

has been the discussion that I

1:32:54

feel like we've had around the edges of this

1:32:56

case a lot because it's the way that Trump has tried

1:32:58

to shape the environment around this case.

1:33:01

It's going to be in the courtroom front and center tomorrow morning

1:33:03

at 9.30. What do you expect Judge

1:33:06

Rashawn is going to do? What are you going to be watching for? You

1:33:10

have Donald Trump clearly goading

1:33:13

the judge. The

1:33:15

fact that he's doing something that

1:33:17

appears by all accounts to be

1:33:19

a direct violation of the

1:33:22

order as late as tonight in

1:33:24

advance of a 9.30 hearing

1:33:27

on violations with

1:33:29

respect to witnesses and a violation with

1:33:31

respect to jurors, both of which are

1:33:34

things that a judge is going to

1:33:36

care tremendously about. I

1:33:39

think the obviously is going

1:33:41

to hear from the defense and the

1:33:43

betting is that he's going to certainly say that

1:33:46

there was a violation and he could

1:33:48

impose the fine that is obviously negligible

1:33:51

and he can saber out all about

1:33:54

what's next. This

1:33:56

is one where what I would say

1:33:58

if I were like a pewer... sitting right here,

1:34:00

I would say leave

1:34:02

aside politics, leave aside

1:34:05

what he's goading somebody to

1:34:07

do. What would

1:34:09

you do for any other

1:34:11

defendant? You know, we have

1:34:13

seen the legal system bend

1:34:15

over sort of so far

1:34:17

to accommodate Donald Trump. He

1:34:19

is not being treated worse.

1:34:22

He is being treated so much

1:34:24

better, whether you're talking about DOJ, whether

1:34:26

you're talking about all of the criminal

1:34:28

cases. And this is one

1:34:30

where he wouldn't have to impose 30 days

1:34:33

in jail, but he can really do like a

1:34:35

child, give him a time out. He can be

1:34:38

stepped back and be kept in

1:34:40

the pens in the courthouse. But I

1:34:42

think this is so clearly like a

1:34:44

child testing what will happen. And it's

1:34:46

at the very outset of the case,

1:34:48

if there isn't a firm hand right

1:34:50

now and the rule of law isn't

1:34:53

imposed, it really is a terrible

1:34:55

message in terms of how the trial is

1:34:57

going to go forward because he's

1:34:59

going to continue doing this. And if they're jurors

1:35:01

he doesn't like, he can attack them. If he's

1:35:03

going to try and seek a mistrial by his

1:35:06

antics, that's something he could try. So the

1:35:09

court, who is extremely experienced, I

1:35:11

think is going to have to be

1:35:13

really careful about what exact is the

1:35:15

sanction he's going to impose tomorrow. How

1:35:18

will the judge decide or how

1:35:20

will the hearing on this go? Again, this

1:35:22

is going to be the way that court starts tomorrow.

1:35:25

Is he going to ask defense,

1:35:27

is he just going to rule or is he going to ask

1:35:29

defense counsel and the prosecutors to make arguments in front of

1:35:32

him? Is he going to, you know, have a witness talk?

1:35:34

So he could ask both

1:35:36

sides to state their position. He could

1:35:38

see if there is a dispute of

1:35:41

facts. You could actually

1:35:43

have a hearing on this, but

1:35:45

there may not be a dispute of facts.

1:35:47

I mean the facts seem so clear unless

1:35:49

Tom Tom's going to say somebody else took

1:35:52

over my account. You know Roger Stone tried

1:35:54

that when he was in violation.

1:35:56

He actually took the witness down and said

1:35:58

I didn't do that. And then he later sort

1:36:00

of recanted and said, OK, I did do it. And

1:36:04

that was when he posted the

1:36:06

judge's picture with crosshairs next to

1:36:08

her head. And

1:36:10

so there can be a hearing,

1:36:13

but it may not be necessary.

1:36:15

Just given the volume of

1:36:18

allegations here, there's now, I think, up

1:36:20

to 11 allegations that

1:36:22

are going to be before the judge. But

1:36:24

ultimately, it would be the state's burden to

1:36:26

go forward. All right, we will be

1:36:29

back with more on the criminal

1:36:31

trial of former President Trump. Opening statements

1:36:33

started today. Again, tomorrow's proceedings will

1:36:36

start 9.30 in the

1:36:38

morning with a hearing on whether or

1:36:40

not Trump should be held in contempt for

1:36:42

violations of the gag order that are supposed

1:36:44

to restrict his ability essentially

1:36:46

to menace witnesses

1:36:49

or jurors in this case. We'll be

1:36:51

right back after this. The

1:37:10

criminal trial of former President Donald Trump is happening

1:37:12

in a specific place. It is happening in

1:37:15

downtown Manhattan. These were anti-Trump protesters

1:37:17

today outside the scene of

1:37:19

today's courtroom proceedings. I would

1:37:21

show you visuals of pro-Trump

1:37:24

protesters today. There weren't any.

1:37:28

There were enough when I saw them to

1:37:30

fit into a sedan, a small sedan. I

1:37:32

saw four, and one of them, I

1:37:34

think, might have been a reporter. Stephanie

1:37:36

Roles joined us. Steph, the

1:37:39

lack of pro-Trump

1:37:42

uprising around this, pro-Trump protesters, President

1:37:44

Trump today was trying to say

1:37:47

it's because Republicans are being prevented from

1:37:49

going to that part of lower Manhattan. What

1:37:51

do you make of how this is happening? In

1:37:53

New York, is it familiar? OK, that's the

1:37:55

story of this for me, the arc of Donald

1:37:58

Trump in New York, right? The boy who... who

1:38:00

grew up in Queens, who dreamt of being

1:38:02

king of New York. Think about the

1:38:05

1980s and every tabloid with Donald Trump

1:38:07

in a limousine, right at Trump Tower,

1:38:09

right in the middle of Fifth Avenue.

1:38:12

Now here he is, a criminal

1:38:14

defendant, an old man sitting there slumped over.

1:38:16

And even this idea, he's got these scores

1:38:19

of fans. And yeah, they might not live

1:38:21

in lower Manhattan and Tribeca, but there's loads

1:38:23

of, there must be two million in the

1:38:25

Tri-State area in Staten Island, in New Jersey

1:38:28

and Long Island. Such a few

1:38:30

number of people in the court, outside

1:38:32

court protesting on his behalf today. Almost

1:38:34

really, almost no one. And who wasn't

1:38:36

inside court with him? A

1:38:38

single member of his family, right? The argument

1:38:40

that he was protecting his family, that's why

1:38:42

this whole thing happened. He's a family man,

1:38:44

not a son, not a daughter, not a

1:38:46

wife, not a cousin, not an uncle, no

1:38:48

one. The whole thing's stunning. Our

1:38:50

friend Suzanne Craig, a New York Times investigative

1:38:53

reporter was at the courthouse today in the

1:38:55

overflow room. Suzanne, it's good to see you.

1:38:57

I know that you've been there. All

1:39:00

of last week you were there today. What

1:39:02

was different about today now that opening

1:39:04

statements have started? Do you feel like

1:39:06

you have a better sense of where the case is going?

1:39:09

We definitely do. And I thought today for me, it

1:39:11

was really exciting. I'm kind of a reporter to

1:39:14

the bone and I was really

1:39:16

tantalized by just these references that we

1:39:18

got today to text

1:39:20

messages and emails that we

1:39:22

hadn't heard of before. And you've

1:39:24

got to imagine there's more coming

1:39:27

on that front. We had one

1:39:29

where Dylan Howard, who is the

1:39:31

top editor of the National Enquirer

1:39:33

goes to California to meet Karen

1:39:35

McDougall and he's texting information about

1:39:38

her back and forth with other people. We're

1:39:40

gonna be able to see some of that.

1:39:42

And the other thing I'm really wondering, David

1:39:45

Pecker is going to be up tomorrow. Are

1:39:48

we gonna get, or not, I know

1:39:50