0:00

A&E's crime and investigation event, The Pursuit,

0:03

returns with a new, unprecedented season of

0:05

60 Days In. This

0:07

time, we're going in. It's a united front.

0:10

Together. With one team. With one

0:12

unified mission. Fool it. We

0:15

are determined to expose. What's really going on?

0:17

Get up. We signed up for this. Ah!

0:20

Would you? 60 Days In, new season

0:23

premieres Thursday, May 30th at 9. Part

0:25

of The Pursuit, a crime and investigation event, only

0:27

on A&E. Hi,

0:32

this is Libby Casey, host of the Trump Trials Sidebar. And each

0:34

week, Rhonda Colvin, James Homan and I take

0:37

you inside the courtrooms and speak with The Washington Post's

0:39

law and justice reporters. They're the

0:42

folks who are on the ground and in the room

0:44

as Donald Trump stands trial. The

0:46

Trump Trials Sidebar is a place where you

0:48

get to learn about some of the most consequential developments

0:51

in American politics and our judicial system. If

0:55

the show has been valuable to you, if

0:57

it's become a weekly house, if it's become

0:59

a weekly habit, if you've learned something new,

1:02

the best way to support us is by

1:04

becoming a Washington Post subscriber. And

1:07

right now is the best time to become a subscriber.

1:09

We're running a special sale from now until June

1:11

3rd. It costs just 99 cents

1:14

every four weeks for a full year.

1:17

And you get all the benefits of being

1:19

a Washington Post subscriber. That

1:21

doesn't only include ad-free access to all of

1:23

our podcasts, but all of the great journalism

1:25

we produce. And for us, you're

1:27

supporting our work here on The Trump

1:29

Trials Sidebar. Just

1:32

visit washingtonpost.com/subscribe. It

1:35

only takes a minute. And as always, thank you

1:37

for being with us. One

1:40

of the stranger parts about Michael Cohen's

1:42

testimony is he uses the language of

1:44

therapy to describe crimes. And

1:47

I'll be honest, it's not a

1:49

good look for therapy. If that's what

1:51

you think therapy is, like he needs

1:53

to maybe get different therapy. We

1:55

will never give up. We will never concede. It

1:58

doesn't happen. I am sorry. Welcome

2:10

to Trump Trials Sidebar from the Washington

2:13

Post. I'm Libby Casey, and here's the

2:15

rest of our team today. We're on

2:17

the Colvin. James Holman. Devlin

2:19

Barrett. And joining us from New

2:21

York City is Shana Jacobs. Shana's our

2:23

New York-based reporter covering courts, law enforcement,

2:26

and criminal justice, and she has been

2:28

very busy day in, day out covering

2:30

the Trump trial. So the

2:32

jury's getting some time off right now, which

2:34

frankly feels a little weird to me. I

2:38

can only imagine how it feels to

2:40

them. But they left the court on

2:42

Tuesday, Devlin, and they're going back next

2:44

Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day. At

2:48

that point, they'll hear closing arguments, hear their

2:50

instructions, and they will begin to deliberate in

2:52

this historic case. Am I the only one

2:54

who finds this incredibly weird that they go

2:56

about their normal lives for the week and

2:58

then have to jump back into it? No,

3:01

it is very weird. I can't think of a break this

3:03

long in a trial I've covered. And

3:06

the judge did it this way because they were

3:08

already going to have Wednesday off. That's been a

3:10

standard thing for this trial. And

3:12

this particular week, they were going to have Friday off

3:14

the day before the holiday because

3:16

a juror had travel plans. So

3:20

the judge did not want to break up the

3:23

closing arguments and the deliberations with

3:25

days off. He thought it was

3:27

most important that the jury be able

3:29

to start deliberating right after they heard closing

3:31

arguments. So he basically picked the lesser of

3:33

two evils. It is strange. I

3:35

do think you run the risk of

3:37

the jurors going home and just

3:39

thinking to themselves on this issue for a long

3:42

period of time. Or the other risk is the

3:44

jurors just forget a lot of the things that

3:46

they have heard and thought about. Just

3:49

watching the jury, they seem very diligent. I would be

3:51

a little surprised if forgetting is much of an issue

3:53

for them. Some of them are very diligent note takers.

3:57

But it is weird. And certainly

3:59

it may. makes for a different kind of closing argument.

4:01

You know, I am almost feeling like

4:03

it's mile 25 of the marathon.

4:06

They're like, take a break. And

4:08

that can either have the effect of recharging you

4:10

and focusing you, or being like, peace out. Like,

4:12

I am done. I am checking out. And what

4:14

do you guys think? I

4:16

also think about what comes after all of

4:18

this. Whatever happens, whether it's a conviction, a

4:21

jury, or whatever, these jurors are still

4:23

attached to this case, right? They're going

4:25

to be hounded by media to see,

4:27

including us. We want to hear if they want to talk

4:30

to us. We want to hear what went

4:32

on, what their thought process was. But

4:35

this is now going to be a part of their life.

4:37

So I feel like even though they're at the end, it's

4:40

maybe the beginning for a lot of them. For

4:43

some of these jurors, it'll be the lead paragraph in

4:45

their obituary that they were a term juror. I

4:48

do think it's always

4:50

perilous to sort of put yourself in the

4:52

jurors' heads, because we have no idea what

4:54

they're thinking. And you

4:57

can game it out so many ways, but is

4:59

there a scenario where there is one juror who

5:01

sort of thinks Trump isn't guilty and is going

5:04

to harden in that view over their week off?

5:07

And really, the other thing is jurors aren't supposed

5:09

to talk to people outside of court, and they

5:11

make a huge, huge deal about that. But

5:15

it's going to be pretty clear. It's such a social

5:17

weekend. It's such a social weekend. And

5:19

so are jurors, as

5:21

inappropriate as that would be, going to be,

5:25

for lack of a better word, lobbied by people

5:27

who know that they're jurors, whether that's close friends

5:29

or family? Yeah, you all are thinking about it from

5:31

the perspective of the legalities of it and the strategy of

5:33

it. I was thinking about it from the perspective of just

5:35

a juror, of just feeling like, oh my gosh, I have

5:38

to put this on the shelf in my mind, but the experience

5:40

isn't over yet. I also think there's a world

5:43

in which it makes the closing arguments even more

5:45

important than they would otherwise be, because there's such

5:47

a long break. And part of what I think,

5:49

as human beings, they might go through when they

5:51

have the closing arguments now and

5:54

I was like, remind me about all this stuff. You're

5:56

hearing it in some ways more freshly. If

5:58

You have closing arguments right after your first. Thermal. For the

6:00

evidence. The. Jurors themselves know what

6:02

the evidence is. I think. There's.

6:05

A chance they might be more persuadable

6:07

by closing arguments because there's more time

6:09

removed from the actual at okay, So in

6:11

that case, that last mile of the marathon or the. They'll

6:13

be like wrapped ever made a gal sort out

6:15

talk about what to watch and as very vital

6:17

closing arguments. On today's episode and also with

6:20

the strongest and weakest parts of the

6:22

case as we've heard it are and

6:24

then we'll go through possible outcomes and

6:26

while I'm not an opinion while down

6:28

on know what you think is going

6:30

to happen, we are not wagering here

6:32

on a do any hear your sins

6:34

and interpretation of where things are headed.

6:36

So let's dive and. First.

6:38

The strongest and weakest parts of

6:40

the prosecution's case. Seen a Let's Go to

6:42

you. You've heard so much of it first hand. What

6:45

are the strength of the case? What stands out to

6:47

you? With. Panned out

6:49

to me is that. There

6:52

is a significant amount

6:54

of evidence that supports

6:56

Michael Cohen story. And

6:59

that is so key to the case

7:02

because of Michael Collins. Potential.

7:04

Credibility as you sit. History of Wine.

7:06

You reconcile a. Wide. Informal

7:09

setting by the Congress. It's just not

7:11

ideal for it's not out of the

7:13

norm mean you have cooperated witnesses who

7:15

are gang members and will kill people.

7:17

I mean it is. This is not

7:20

the norm for a white collar days

7:22

but it is. Ah. United.

7:24

Is Not. He

7:26

was going to be an issue going to the

7:28

trial and call. Who.

7:31

We know is very aware

7:33

you know hair trigger temper.

7:35

he. Was. Fine he was

7:37

naral he was is it was a

7:40

would. You know it was really good.

7:42

It. Was really gives us money in that sense. And

7:46

the song as part of the defense case is

7:48

that it doesn't matter that he was really good,

7:50

he is still a. Liar. He

7:52

lies to get any of you like

7:55

to get himself things like to get

7:57

thought you'd now very very motivated thirds

7:59

of honest. because of what he believes

8:01

Trump did to him. Strongest and weakest parts of

8:03

the case to you Devlin. We all went into

8:05

this case knowing that Michael Cohen was a very

8:07

important part of this case. I

8:10

ended the trial thinking, God, he's even more important

8:12

to this case than I thought when this thing

8:14

started. Because yes,

8:16

the paper is the paper and the paper is

8:18

irrefutable, but Cohen is the one, in some

8:21

ways the only one, who speaks

8:23

to the actual intent of the cover-up

8:26

of the payments. And that's really

8:28

important. I also

8:30

think the other really weak, potentially

8:33

weak part of the case is the

8:35

absence of Alan Weisselberg, Trump's former CFO.

8:38

He's the person who gives Michael Cohen

8:40

his instructions on this, even according to

8:42

Michael Cohen. I

8:45

just think his absence is

8:48

in some ways a real gift to Trump as a

8:50

defense. But

8:52

a lot of Trump's

8:54

defense strategy here is arguably

8:57

not ideal. Trump's trying to

8:59

win every argument on every subject. Most defense

9:01

lawyers would say that's a bad formula. Do

9:04

you think that's driven by Trump or by his lawyers? I

9:06

think most lawyers I talk to believe that's driven by Trump.

9:10

James? The receipts

9:12

of the key thing on the positive side, on

9:14

the negative side, it's

9:16

not just Weisselberg, it's also Keith

9:19

Schiller, the bodyguard who supposedly got

9:21

that phone call that became, I

9:23

think, way more important

9:26

than we had thought going in once Cohen said

9:28

that that was where Trump

9:30

gave his authorization. Ultimately, there's

9:32

only one witness who

9:34

directly connects Trump to making

9:37

these payments for election

9:41

interference reasons. And

9:43

I think the other big weakness in the

9:45

case is the hoops that you sort of have to

9:47

jump through, which is normally

9:50

this would be a misdemeanor, falsifying business records.

9:53

Normally, the statute of limitations would have expired.

9:55

They're making it a felony by

9:58

saying that it was in commission of another crime. They've

10:00

said what that crime is, which is essentially

10:02

election fraud, trying to

10:05

change the outcome of an election. You

10:08

do have to jump

10:10

through multiple hoops. If

10:12

you're trying to raise reasonable

10:15

doubt about why

10:17

Trump did it, even if

10:19

he made the payments, maybe they did that. I

10:25

think that you can see doubts

10:27

percolating potentially in the jurors' heads

10:30

over the five weeks of this. Before we

10:32

hear, Rhonda, what you see as the strengths

10:34

and weaknesses, let's drill down into that

10:37

phone call that you were talking about, James. Devlin

10:41

and Shaina, I don't know if

10:43

either of you were in court when the

10:45

big moment came where Blanche

10:47

was questioning Cohen about the details of this phone

10:49

call. Were either of you there? Shaina was in the

10:52

room. I was in the overflow. Okay. You

10:54

can take us through some of the details, but let

10:56

me just set this up first. There's

10:59

this pivotal phone call, which becomes

11:01

pivotal because Trump's lawyers

11:03

are saying this

11:06

was a phone call to Keith Schiller,

11:08

who's Trump's body guy, who's

11:10

with him a lot, with him all the time. Isn't

11:13

it true that you were discussing not a

11:16

payment that has gone through that's working out

11:18

or that you're working on with Stormy Daniels,

11:20

but that instead you were

11:23

talking to Schiller about these harassing phone calls

11:25

that Cohen was getting, right? He's getting a

11:27

ton of harassing phone calls. This is a

11:29

phone call about that specific issue. Have

11:32

I summed that up decently well, Devlin? Yeah, I think

11:34

that's right. I think what

11:36

was surprising and I think effective about

11:38

the defense presentation was they presented the

11:40

text leading up to the phone call.

11:44

The thing to always remember is that jurors are very

11:46

good about applying common sense to what they're hearing. When

11:49

you see the text and then realize that Keith Schiller

11:51

says, call me, and then there's a phone call and

11:53

it's not very long. They're texting about these harassing phone

11:56

calls. Right. They're texting about

11:58

the harassing phone calls and Cohen initiates the text.

12:00

the conversation shows as call Me. Normal

12:02

people would look at that and say. That's.

12:05

Believable. That's it. That's an entirely normal

12:07

human conversations. With a let's listen to some

12:09

of this exchange Now these are our colleagues

12:12

read the Washington Post were reading from the

12:14

transcripts since the cannot be with cameras in

12:16

the court or audio from the court we

12:18

had due to the transcripts of the end

12:20

of the day and this is Ah, reading

12:22

of the transcript. Now this is not a

12:24

dramatic reenactments, it is just giving us the

12:26

words so we can have a better sense

12:28

of it's the first voice that you'll hear,

12:30

His are the words of Trump's lawyer Ta

12:32

Blanche and the second voice or here is

12:34

Michael Collins words. Five. Minutes ago

12:36

I asked you if you remember harassing phone

12:39

calls and you said no And then I

12:41

refresh your recollection. It's totally sir

12:43

if you don't remember. But now your testimony

12:45

is that you were testifying truthfully on Tuesday

12:47

to a one minute and thirty six second

12:49

phone call and you had enough time in

12:51

that one minute and thirty six seconds to

12:53

update Mr Sure about all of the problems

12:55

you were having with those harassing phone calls

12:57

and also have that President Trump on the

12:59

status of the story. Then you'll situation because

13:01

you had to keep him informed because every

13:03

time you made any decision you read a

13:05

by the boss. that's your testimony. I.

13:08

Always ran everything by the boss

13:10

immediately. In. In this case, He.

13:12

Could have just been seen. Everything is been

13:14

taken care of. It's going to get result.

13:16

That's not what you testified to. On Tuesday

13:18

you said you had a recollection of a

13:20

phone call on October twenty fourth at eight

13:22

o two pm. we called Mr. Solar and

13:24

he gave the phone to President Trump and

13:26

you told President Trump about the updates the

13:28

you are moving forward with the funding and

13:30

he said okay go That was a why

13:32

you did not talk to President Trump on

13:34

that night. He talks to keep sure about

13:37

what we just went through. You can admit

13:39

it. No. Sir, I can't

13:41

I'm not certain that is accurate.

13:44

That's a reading of testimony by Michael

13:46

Cohen answering questions from Trump's Layer Top

13:48

Lance. Again, that's our team reading. It's

13:50

the words center. Was that a dramatic

13:52

moment in real life? It

13:55

was very dramatic and realized it one

13:57

from i don't know. Twenty Two

13:59

One. Great very quickly. In terms

14:01

of my thing is hop lenses intensity.

14:04

Or in cross. Examination. The.

14:07

Danger of that moment. I mean,

14:09

Michael Cohen stuff for it. He

14:11

just looks incredibly caught off guard.

14:13

like he had not been prepared

14:15

for that. It seem very much

14:17

like he had not been prepared

14:19

for this. The. Danger.

14:21

But But he recovered and he provided

14:23

a plausible answer. A minute and thirty

14:25

six seconds. I mean

14:27

taglines says a satellite a time but

14:30

even if it takes five seconds to

14:32

say just tell the boss as such

14:34

thing we were working on is taking

14:36

generals. That's. Plausible. I think

14:38

the jury might see that is perfectly

14:41

plausible. It took him off a while

14:43

to get today answer because it does

14:45

not seem like he had see. Me:

14:47

Sex in advance. That.

14:50

Said the jury might. Make

14:53

more of that moment. They might

14:56

say that if he didn't remember

14:58

something significant about back on his

15:00

own. Just he was

15:03

easy reconstructing. The entire story

15:05

From Texas To keep you

15:07

know, Workers. That

15:09

the the A is he reconstructing

15:11

the reality. I don't. I

15:13

don't know that they will make that much of it. But.

15:16

It does seem like a possibility that they will

15:18

use that to sort of. We. We.

15:20

Examined. Every other element

15:22

every them for an element of. Microphones,

15:26

Are drug test minds? So deadland incident

15:28

happened during the team's wouldn't make a mistake in

15:30

that Prepping Michael Cohen with those texts and will

15:32

soon as as of lately recovered mean ninety six

15:34

seconds. I mean I were the prosecution I think

15:36

I do. My closing arguments make everyone sit there

15:38

for ninety six seconds and think about how much

15:41

you can actually looks a long time Systems are

15:43

in terms of just like quick messaging back. of

15:45

where the phone call right i think i

15:47

think you'll be obvious i think one been

15:49

same and i are looking for very much

15:51

as how each side talks and closings about

15:53

that i do think make me juri sift

15:55

through ninety six seconds would be an effective

15:57

way to make the case i do think

16:00

the defense in that instance on that issue,

16:03

caught the prosecution out, caught Cohen out, however you want

16:05

to say it. And by caught

16:07

them out, it's not like caught them in a trap,

16:10

them in a lie or something. It's like they didn't,

16:12

they hadn't realized like there's this text chain leading up

16:14

to the phone call. Correct. And look,

16:16

like I think too often, probably

16:19

because of TV and movies, we think of lawyers

16:21

as like these super geniuses. Trials

16:23

are inherently bouncy and

16:25

a bit of a roller coaster and people

16:28

make mistakes. That is part of the process.

16:31

So I think, for all

16:33

intents and purposes, it feels like that's something that

16:35

prosecutors miss. That's something that Cohen wasn't prepared for.

16:39

And I think that showed in the moment. But

16:41

it seemed like they were able to do some cleanup. Sure,

16:44

yeah. And that's not just in the moment,

16:47

but later, because they were able to

16:49

show the jury that Schiller and Trump

16:51

were indeed together like five minutes before

16:53

through a photo, like from C-SPAN,

16:55

right? On that day they were together. Yeah,

16:58

but I mean, I'll be honest, this

17:00

is one of those details that I

17:02

think reporters perceive differently than jurors, because

17:04

anyone who's spent any time covering Trump

17:06

on any level knows that Schiller is

17:08

always with Trump. Like that's

17:10

not some great mystery. That's always been true.

17:13

Schiller, for instance, was with Trump the night

17:15

he was with Stormy Daniels many

17:17

years earlier. He's basically been with

17:19

Trump as far as you can tell from the

17:21

outside world every night of their lives when he

17:24

was in his employment. Again, a

17:26

lot- Was that clear on court, though, to

17:28

the jurors? Well, that's my point. I

17:32

think it's probably helpful to the prosecution. But

17:35

I also think, again, to take things as,

17:37

I always try to perceive things in the

17:39

most common sense way, because I think that's

17:41

what jurors are usually looking for. And I

17:44

think the most common sense way is Cohen

17:46

got caught, wasn't sure what

17:48

to do, and he looked on his face, and this is what matters,

17:51

I think, to jurors quite a bit. He looked on his face like, oh, I'm

17:53

going to get a picture. Oh,

17:55

bleep. What am

17:57

I going to say here? And Shane is absolutely right.

18:00

He did recover well, but you

18:02

can't take back that expression. You can't

18:04

take back that facial expression. And

18:07

if you're asking me what I think they most tarried

18:09

away from that moment, it's not anything Cohen said. And

18:12

it's really not anything Blanche yelled at him. It's

18:14

the look on his face when Blanche says that.

18:18

Rhonda, strengths and weaknesses in the case.

18:21

What do you see as the strength of the prosecution

18:23

and places where there might be holes and room for

18:25

the jury to find Trump not guilty? Yeah, I agree

18:27

with everything that's been said about Cohen. And

18:29

I believe Shana said it. He is both

18:31

the strength and the weakness in all of

18:33

this. His credibility is the weakness. His strength

18:35

is the evidence he was able to bring,

18:38

the tangible evidence he was able to bring. I

18:40

think one of the moments that I remember being

18:42

a standout in the transcript is

18:44

when the jury heard the tape

18:46

between Cohen and Trump, where it's

18:49

about the Karen McDougal payment, but

18:51

it does appear that Trump

18:53

understands what Cohen is saying when he's referring

18:55

to the financing of this payment. I think

18:57

that that's a crucial moment because A,

19:00

it does show that Trump has some sort

19:02

of awareness of what Cohen was doing, or

19:04

at least the jurors might perceive that. And

19:06

also B, because we did not hear from

19:09

Trump, at least formally in this entire trial,

19:12

the jury heard his voice.

19:14

And I wonder if that's going to

19:16

be pretty pivotal. That was the one time

19:18

they were able to hear Trump talk about

19:20

this case. And it

19:22

does appear to look incriminating if you

19:24

listen to it. We'll see if the

19:27

jurors feel that way. But I think,

19:29

Cohen, the strength he brought to the

19:31

prosecution is he did have receipts, literal

19:33

receipts, invoices, and tangible evidence that could

19:35

show what the prosecution is trying to

19:38

prove. Can we look at some of

19:40

those pieces of evidence and invoices? We are streaming

19:42

on YouTube. So for our YouTube audience, you can

19:44

watch along with us. For those who are listening

19:46

on podcast apps or on the Washington Post site,

19:49

we'll explain what we're seeing. But let's just look

19:51

at one of these pieces of evidence that was

19:53

important. Why don't we throw up one of them? So

19:57

this is a check that Donald Trump signed.

20:00

a lot of us know that Donald Trump signature. Why

20:02

do we know it so well? He used to

20:04

hold up, anytime he would sign

20:06

a bill or an executive order, he would hold

20:08

it up and do kind of a 180 to

20:10

show off his signature. And many Americans got checks

20:12

during his administration with that signature on

20:15

it, right? Which he sort of like breached

20:17

norms and put it on there anyway. Devlin,

20:20

why is that significant? So

20:22

that's significant because if I remember correctly,

20:24

that check has a notation on it

20:27

that says legal retainer. And that's sort

20:29

of the heart of the prosecution case

20:31

that these were reimbursements for

20:33

money to keep Stormy Daniels

20:35

quiet. There's no legal

20:37

retainer here. There's no retainer agreement here.

20:40

This is all fake billing, essentially. That's

20:42

the heart of the case. And let's look at another

20:44

piece of evidence that has really

20:46

seemed to hit home. All right. Handwriting, handwriting

20:49

is always important. There's the sort

20:51

of the Trump logo right at the top. Shana, can

20:53

you see this piece of evidence with us? I

20:56

can, yeah. Okay. So there was testimony

20:58

about just whose handwriting is on this

21:00

and what it contains. Talk to us

21:02

about it. The prosecution believes this is

21:04

absolutely key. This might be

21:06

their most important document in

21:08

the entire case. It corroborates

21:11

what Michael Cohen says. We talked

21:13

about this and

21:15

we got together and we jotted down

21:17

a plan. Obviously, this does not look

21:19

like a very formal legal plan, but

21:22

it is something. It is something that exists

21:24

and does not seem to be in dispute that

21:27

this is what it appears to be.

21:29

This is said to be Allen Weisselberg's handwriting.

21:32

We heard that in testimony. Now, even though

21:34

we didn't hear from Allen Weisselberg, we did

21:36

hear testimony from Trump's former comptroller about who's

21:39

handwriting this was in. And if we can just look at it

21:41

one more time, the numbers

21:43

are important, right, James and Rhonda?

21:45

Because we're talking about the payment that he

21:48

made to Stormy Daniels. And then

21:51

it's also inflated. Yeah. And

21:54

so the idea is that Michael Cohen is getting

21:56

reimbursed and then he's getting reimbursed because he's going

21:59

to have to. pay tax,

22:01

plussed up with the terminology

22:03

in court, where

22:05

because he's being

22:08

paid as if it's income for being a

22:10

lawyer as opposed to a reimbursement, like when

22:12

you get your expenses reimbursed, they

22:14

added in the tax premium. And

22:19

Donald Trump had said in the

22:21

past that he did reimburse Cohen.

22:25

And Todd Blanche said, I

22:28

think in opening arguments, that this was

22:30

not a payback. But

22:33

it sure looks like a payback when

22:35

you look at what's

22:37

written down on the piece of paper. Let's take a

22:39

look at one third and final piece of evidence for

22:41

today's show. And we also heard about this

22:43

from Trump's comptroller, Devlin. Right.

22:46

And I believe it's, if I remember correctly,

22:48

it's Allen Weisselberg's handwriting on the left side,

22:50

where they're first sketching out how you get

22:53

because one of the hard things to explain

22:55

about this case to the average person is

22:57

how you get from $130,000 hush money

23:00

payment to a $420,000 reimbursement. Sounds

23:05

like a good thing to me. Now, it's

23:08

the new math. But the point

23:10

is that essentially, in Michael

23:12

Cohen's telling, they threw in some other

23:14

things that Michael Cohen was owed

23:17

for. And so that's how and

23:19

because of the tax issue, they gross up and then

23:21

you get to the $420. So

23:23

for those of us who aren't watching, this

23:25

is an account statement from First Republic Bank.

23:27

It's a statement. But then there's the handwriting

23:30

scribbled on the sides. And it's

23:32

a color. Right. And I think

23:34

I think what's important about that obviously

23:36

is it's the it's the statement from

23:38

the original payment to Stormy Daniels. And

23:41

then you get all these other notations

23:43

getting you up to a different figure.

23:45

And obviously, that's meaningful evidence because it

23:48

draws a straight line. Why would you write

23:50

this on this particular document if this was

23:53

not the money for this repayment?

23:56

I want to look at one thing there. There's plus $50,000 paid to

23:58

Red. Finch for

24:00

tech services. Okay, why you're laughing

24:03

Devlin. This was one of this is one

24:05

of the other ways in which Cohen is both a

24:07

great and terrible witness. He never

24:10

he never helps he never does 100%

24:13

of anything like he never completely helps

24:15

he never completely hurts. So one

24:18

of the things that Michael Cohen was paid

24:20

back for according to his testimony was a

24:23

services provided by a company called

24:25

Redfinch. There was a

24:27

CNBC poll about important business leaders in history.

24:30

Donald Trump was low on the list. Donald

24:32

Trump wanted to be higher on the list

24:34

according to Michael Cohen. And so Michael Cohen

24:36

paid this tech services company to basically as

24:39

far as I can tell as a non-technical

24:41

person, spam the ever-loving heck

24:43

out of this poll to get move Donald

24:45

Trump higher up the list. Their

24:47

bill for that was somehow $50,000 because

24:49

Cohen had a personal relationship

24:54

with the person with the person who

24:56

ran Redfinch. Trump

24:58

wouldn't pay because the poll essentially got

25:00

shut down before he could you know

25:02

reap the reward. Like he was only

25:04

number nine. Right and there was this

25:06

whole weird discussion in testimony about like well we don't want him

25:08

to be number one because that would look weird we just wanted

25:10

to be hot like I so he reached the pinnacle

25:13

of number nine but then it didn't even matter anyway because they

25:15

shut the whole thing down. Right and Donald Trump doesn't

25:17

want to pay the 50 grand. He didn't get

25:19

his money. Michael Cohen feels like he's in a

25:21

bad spot he says because this is his friend

25:23

who did the work and so Michael Cohen in

25:25

very Michael Cohen fashion decides to

25:28

pay his friend 20 grand in cash in

25:30

a brown paper bag how any of that

25:32

ever look good never I have no idea

25:34

but anyway that's what he does also also

25:36

also also he

25:39

takes that money out in a series of withdrawals from

25:42

the bank which I

25:44

think Shane and I would both agree sounds an awful lot

25:46

like a kind of crime called smurfing

25:50

it's technically it's called structuring but most

25:52

lawyers use a shorthand called smurfing it

25:54

just I don't think the

25:56

jury will pick up any of this but it

25:58

just stinks it just like Even the

26:00

simplest things with Michael Cohen somehow end up

26:03

sounding weird. Okay Devlin, so he pays this

26:05

guy $20,000 But on

26:07

that sheet it says redfinch was paid $50,000

26:10

right and this is where he hurts himself again as a witness because

26:14

What what he admits to understand is that

26:16

while he did get paid $50,000 by Trump for

26:20

redfinch He basically pockets

26:22

the other 30 and

26:25

because it's doubled up grossed up for

26:27

tax purposes What Trump really gives Cohen

26:29

for redfinch is a hundred grand. So

26:33

It's a little hard to explain but essentially the way

26:35

to think of it is Michael Cohen's pockets 30 grand

26:38

and in the process He's basically

26:40

stealing 60 grand

26:42

or so from Trump organization because the

26:44

Trump organization is overpaying quite a lot

26:48

to manage both Cohen being

26:50

Cohen deciding and Sorry,

26:52

it's just it's a mind-blowing weird small

26:54

detail this case when he's asked about

26:57

that He admits that he

26:59

stole and he calls it self-help One

27:03

of the stranger parts about Michael Cohen's

27:06

testimony is he uses the language of

27:08

therapy to describe crimes and I'll

27:11

be honest It's not

27:13

a good look for therapy if that's what

27:15

you think therapy is like he needs to

27:17

maybe get different therapy Yeah, it's very strange

27:19

You know she did so the prosecution had brought this

27:22

up where they like tried to like deflate it right

27:24

make it like a non-issue But then Todd Blanche brings

27:26

it back later So I

27:28

want to play that reenactment I'm not gonna

27:30

call an reenactment the recreation of

27:33

that part of the testimony and then I want to get your

27:35

response She knows so the first voice you'll hear

27:37

are the words of Trump's lawyer Todd

27:39

Blanche the second voice You'll hear are

27:41

the words of Michael Cohen and they're

27:43

talking about these payments for legal

27:45

services and other things Let's pay.

27:48

Let's play the tape. You never gave the

27:50

$30,000 that was owed to the guy that

27:52

owned redfinch. Did you? No,

27:54

no, sir So you stole from

27:56

the Trump organization, right? Yes,

27:58

sir, and you didn't just steal the $30,000,

28:01

right? It was actually because it was grossed

28:03

up. It was $60,000. Yes,

28:06

sir. Meaning if you had been

28:08

honest with Mr. Weisselberg and said, I'm only owed

28:10

$20,000, and he grossed that up,

28:13

that would have been $40,000, not $100, correct?

28:15

Correct. And

28:17

you told multiple prosecutors in the district attorney's

28:20

office that story, right? Yes, sir. Did

28:22

you ever have to plead guilty to larceny? No,

28:25

sir. Have you paid back the Trump Organization

28:27

the money that you stole from them? No,

28:29

sir. And you're hearing a

28:31

reading of the words of Michael Cohen

28:33

and Todd Blanche. Shana, was

28:36

this a gotcha moment from Todd Blanche?

28:38

Because he really, he accuses Michael Cohen

28:40

of stealing this money. He says the

28:42

words out loud, basically. Instead of using

28:44

the words of therapy, he uses the

28:47

word of crime. Yeah.

28:49

It was the first time what

28:51

we saw in that chicken scratch paper was

28:54

actually framed as theft, you

28:57

know, brand larceny. But it

29:01

was just another egg in the

29:03

basket to, for

29:07

Todd Blanche to argue to the jury that this

29:09

guy is so dishonest, you can't believe a word

29:11

he says. He steals from his boss who he

29:13

claims he was loyal to, who he

29:16

once claimed he was able to bullet for. You

29:18

know, it's just not a good look. It

29:21

also sort of, the other aspect of

29:23

this, and

29:26

I'm not sure if the defense will argue this, is that

29:28

the fact that they gave him $40,000 with

29:31

the tax stuff, all that, I mean, it was

29:33

still, he still made out better than he

29:35

would have if he just got reimbursed $130,000.

29:37

It kind of

29:39

seems in some ways

29:41

like it's a Trump to Cohen

29:43

payoff. It's a Trump to Cohen

29:46

hush money payment, because their relationship

29:48

was ending, even though he came

29:50

on as a personal attorney during

29:52

in 2017 when Trump took office,

29:55

he wasn't doing any legal work for him. He did a couple

29:57

of minor things that I think he said he didn't even charge.

30:00

Trump for that. There was no retainer. There

30:02

was no actual personal-attorney

30:05

relationship. I mean, Cohen had moved on

30:07

to other things. So it

30:09

does kind of seem like Trump

30:11

and Weisselberg had constructed this

30:13

in a way that they were sort of paying

30:16

off Cohen to never talk about the things he

30:18

had done for Trump, including paying

30:20

off Stormy Daniels. That could be a

30:22

significant thing if they decide to print

30:24

it that way. So part of

30:26

this closing argument phase will be reminding the

30:28

jurors of testimony like that. So James, what

30:30

do you think the prosecution and defense need

30:32

to do to stitch things together in

30:35

the closing argument? The

30:39

prosecution needs to tell

30:41

the jurors, remind the jurors that Michael Cohen is

30:43

not on trial and

30:46

that he's a terrible, flawed

30:48

guy, but he did this

30:51

thing to help this guy that's on trial

30:53

commit a crime. And he also has

30:55

motivation to get the money back, right? They've not

30:58

painted him like Hope Hicks in particular

31:00

was used to paint Michael Cohen as

31:02

not a generous giving guy. Right. They've

31:04

shown that he does

31:06

favors for people when it benefits him ultimately.

31:09

Yeah. And he wants the money back. And

31:12

he had his own interests. It was about

31:14

Michael Cohen, not about Donald Trump. On

31:17

the defense side, you just have to create

31:19

reasonable doubt. You just have to, that's,

31:22

you don't need to convince 12 jurors. You

31:24

only need to convince one or two that

31:28

maybe this wasn't about the election. Maybe

31:30

this was about Malani. Maybe Allen Weisselberg was

31:32

freelancing and Trump was signing checks that were

31:34

being sent to him. He was busy. He

31:36

was president to

31:39

reimburse Cohen, but that

31:42

maybe this was something that was sort of happening

31:44

behind Trump's back that he was vaguely aware of

31:46

that he didn't really know was about

31:48

the election. And

31:51

that Cohen is lying about

31:53

this just as he's lied about everything else.

31:56

Devlin, what will you be watching for and listening for?

31:59

So. I think what I'm

32:01

going to be listening for is in some ways, I

32:03

think I understand what the prosecution argument is going to

32:05

be. That you have a paper case

32:07

here and Michael Cohen fills

32:09

in some critical blanks and

32:12

while you may find Michael Cohen to be

32:14

a jerk, he is a credible jerk on

32:16

this point. You don't need to like Michael

32:18

Cohen, you just need to believe his version

32:20

on like a few key points.

32:23

I think in some ways the defense, I'll

32:25

be much more curious to see what the

32:27

defense argument makes because in

32:31

a lot of trials, the defense struggles

32:33

to come up with an alternate explanation

32:35

for events. I

32:38

actually think the defense here for

32:40

all of Trump's odd

32:42

insistence on things that aren't relevant to

32:44

guilt or innocence. I think the

32:46

defense here has actually done a fairly good

32:48

job of coming

32:50

up with an alternate explanation for these events. Their

32:53

alternate explanation is Michael Cohen is a

32:55

lunatic and a liar and a thief. You

32:57

just can't put anyone away

32:59

on what he, on his word.

33:02

I think the strongest argument you can make as a defense

33:04

in this case would be whatever

33:07

you think of Donald Trump, you would

33:09

not want someone you care about to

33:11

be convicted on the word of someone like Michael

33:13

Cohen, period. The system

33:16

has to stand for that principle, otherwise the

33:18

system breaks down. I'll be

33:20

honest, I think there's a world in

33:22

which they don't make that argument because

33:24

that argument acknowledges that Trump may be

33:26

human or may be a

33:28

flawed person. One of

33:31

the ways in which this trial has been weird is

33:33

that Trump has clearly wanted to argue things like he

33:36

never slept with Stormy Daniels. He has

33:38

wanted to wage fights that aren't critical

33:40

to this case. I'll

33:42

be watching to see if he keeps using

33:45

the defense closing argument, the most

33:47

important thing they do in this entire trial

33:49

to try to score points that matter to

33:51

his ego because that would be very dangerous,

33:54

I think. Shana, what

33:56

are you going to be watching for and listening for because

33:58

you'll actually get to witness. the closing arguments.

34:00

Yeah, definitely said it really well. The

34:04

Senate has to do a

34:07

very good job of mainly

34:10

describing Michael Cohen

34:13

and making him look like

34:16

a completely unhinged lunatic who

34:19

can't be trusted and is always, always

34:21

hustling. He's a hustler who's always

34:23

taking advantage of whoever he has to

34:25

in order to make money primarily. The

34:28

other thing is I think they will

34:31

try to focus on the idea that

34:33

this isn't campaign-related. It's

34:35

personal. Trump would

34:38

have paid off Stormy

34:40

Daniels in a different situation in a year other than 2016

34:42

and other than now. But

34:46

I think they have to do a good

34:48

job of constructing a narrative that says this

34:51

was not anything to do with

34:53

the election. This was

34:55

someone not wanting their reputation

34:57

tarnished by

35:00

this woman. That

35:03

said, there's stories from so many

35:05

other women. It's

35:07

not something that was really—you got to have control of that

35:09

narrative against that

35:12

Trump engages in misconduct

35:14

with women. But

35:17

they still—I mean, the jury doesn't know any of that. So

35:20

the defense can paint a picture

35:22

of this is just something

35:24

any rich guy would do to protect himself and his

35:26

business and his family. All

35:29

right. Well, coming up next, the jury instructions and how

35:31

vital they are to this whole process. And

35:34

we'll get our panel to weigh in on what

35:36

could actually happen. Stay with us. Your

35:39

Memorial Day weekend haul can be found with

35:41

one stop at Meijer. Pick up Fresh from

35:43

Meijer 80% Lean Ground Beef Family Pack for

35:45

just $2.99 a pound. Plus,

35:47

buy five, save $5 on

35:50

sweet Baby Race BBQ sauce, Briar's

35:52

ice cream and 24-pack Coca-Cola or

35:54

Pepsi products. Plus, deposit where applicable.

35:56

And rev up your savings and

35:58

earn 50 points per gallon of

36:00

gas pumped at any Meijer Express through June

36:02

1st. Get everything you need

36:04

for Memorial Day this week at Meijer. Exclusions

36:06

apply. See all the deals in the Meijer

36:08

app. For the first time ever on

36:10

60 Days Inn, we're going in to the United

36:12

Front. You know, we signed up for this. Would

36:15

you? 60 Days Inn, the

36:18

premiere is Thursday, May 30th at 9. One of

36:20

the receipts of a crime investigation event only

36:22

on A&E. What is the most important

36:24

crime that you've ever seen? So

36:28

jury instructions may seem like housekeeping or

36:30

detail, but in this case especially, they are

36:32

very important. Devlin, why are they so important

36:34

this time around? And every time,

36:36

let's say. Right. They're always important. I

36:39

think they're particularly important in this case because

36:41

the legal architecture of these charges are so...

36:44

Let's call it unique. This

36:47

is like a Russian nesting doll of crime.

36:49

He's charged with a crime that is based

36:51

on a different crime, which itself is based

36:53

on a third crime. And that third thing

36:55

is probably a federal crime, although the prosecutors

36:57

have been given a lot of latitude to

36:59

argue to the jury that could be based

37:02

on a number of different crimes. I

37:04

don't know how the jury is going to process that. You know,

37:07

I obsess about the common sense of jurors. I

37:10

don't know what common sense creates

37:12

that Russian nesting doll. So

37:15

I just think it makes the charge that

37:17

much more important. And there are

37:19

multiple lawyers on the jury. There are two lawyers

37:21

on the jury, yes. And that

37:23

could be very important. I

37:26

think that's one of the great unknowns

37:28

of this process is how do those

37:30

lawyer jurors think about what they've seen

37:32

and heard. Shaina,

37:35

what did we learn in sort of the process of

37:37

hashing out what some of these jury instructions would be

37:39

like? So there

37:41

is this idea that the law says

37:44

that somebody can be guilty of falsifying

37:46

business records if they cause a false

37:48

entry. That is what the prosecution,

37:50

I think it's actually just

37:52

going to be part of the charge. It's sort of

37:54

something that's indisputable. What is disputable

37:57

is how... how

38:01

campaign finance law gets

38:03

explained to the jury. Again,

38:07

they're going to try to use

38:09

common sense, but it is going to be

38:11

about whether the

38:14

payments actually constitute it,

38:17

what constitutes a campaign

38:19

finance violation. And

38:22

there's arguments over that still, and we're

38:24

going to find out the final instructions,

38:26

maybe in the next few days. I

38:29

think the defense and the prosecution are

38:32

very far apart, the defense leaning toward the

38:34

idea that it has to be

38:36

entirely about the campaign. It has to be,

38:38

obviously, about the campaign in order for that

38:40

to be a campaign, an election

38:43

law violation, as opposed to the prosecution,

38:45

who firmly believes that it can be

38:47

just a partially about even protecting

38:51

a campaign or involving somebody. It

38:53

has to be partially about an

38:56

expense related to

38:58

the campaign. So that this, even if he

39:00

thought this was partly personal to protect Melania

39:02

and his family or whatever, that

39:05

doesn't matter because it also

39:07

benefited his campaign and they're going

39:09

to say that that's clearly the reality

39:11

here. And James, legal definitions are really

39:13

important. And in fact, Trump's team wanted

39:15

to have a witness testify, but he

39:17

was not allowed to because there was

39:19

concern that he would provide legal definitions

39:22

in a way that really the judge

39:24

wants to have control over. And ultimately

39:27

wasn't able to testify. The

39:29

judge also got angry at Robert Costello, who

39:31

was the defense's witness for doing

39:33

what the judge thought was basically offering analysis

39:36

of the law. There

39:39

were sort of two interesting moments

39:42

on Tuesday when they started talking about what's

39:44

called a charging conference, which is

39:46

basically how you put together these

39:49

jury instructions. And Judge

39:52

Mershon seemed poised

39:54

to rule against prosecutors on what

39:56

could be critical on this standard

39:58

that the

40:00

jury needs to find that the

40:03

falsified record entries were reasonably foreseeable,

40:06

that signing these checks and making

40:08

these payments to Michael Cohen, it

40:12

was reasonably foreseeable that this was going

40:14

to lead to falsified business records. And

40:17

the judge seemed skeptical of that.

40:19

On the flip side, Bershaun

40:22

also grew annoyed when the defense team tried to

40:25

get language in the instructions

40:27

basically saying that Trump made these decisions

40:29

based on the involvement of his lawyers.

40:32

And the judge's pushback on that repeatedly

40:34

over months and really

40:36

has rejected what would be

40:39

an advice of counsel defense. And that's where when you

40:41

look to what are they going to say

40:43

in the closing arguments that you could

40:45

imagine Todd Blanche saying, look, Michael

40:47

Cohen was Donald Trump's lawyer. And Michael

40:49

Cohen told him this was OK and that

40:52

this would pass legal muster. And Trump just

40:54

was following bad legal advice. And

40:56

the judge rejected that. I talked to a top Trump

40:58

ally this morning who was feeling

41:00

really good after the Cohen testimony wrapped up,

41:02

but was feeling a lot less good after

41:05

this charging conference. And

41:08

the feeling was that the judge was limiting

41:11

in unhelpful ways the

41:13

arguments that they could make and

41:15

to tee up these instructions where

41:17

they could kind of push the jury toward a

41:21

certainly a hung jury as much as not.

41:23

No one expects an acquittal. OK, James opened

41:25

the door. He cracked open the door to

41:27

just what could happen. I

41:30

want to hear from you in a minute, Rhonda. But James, since you opened

41:32

the door, what are the options of the table here?

41:34

That's where you're talking to all these people who are

41:36

following closely. Devlin and Shane

41:38

have obviously been in the room and absorbed every minute of

41:40

it. It

41:43

seems like there's an

41:45

acquittal, an outright acquittal seems super

41:48

unlikely. That would mean that all dozen

41:50

of the jurors have to agree that

41:53

Donald Trump did not commit a crime.

41:56

OK, let's pause there. Devlin, agree? So

41:58

this is going to sound a little snotty. I will say this.

42:01

I think people make a lot of... This

42:03

is the normal process. Humans want to guess

42:06

at outcomes. I think what happens

42:08

a lot with trials in my experience is that we

42:10

all make guesses. We are

42:12

all proven right or

42:14

wrong in the near future. But what also happens

42:16

is as soon as the verdict is in, everyone

42:19

immediately recalibrates. They were like, oh. Well,

42:21

it was always going to be... It

42:23

was always predestined that the outcome would

42:25

be X. I just

42:27

want to go on record because I'm pretty sure we're recording

42:30

this. I have no idea what the outcome will be. I've

42:33

been surprised by juries. I've been

42:35

not surprised by juries. I don't

42:37

know. All right. Let's take it back

42:39

to the options on the table, though. There's acquittal, which James

42:41

is guessing is like a hard no. What are the other options,

42:43

Rhonda? Yeah. And I just have to say, I agree

42:46

with Devlin. We don't know anything. The jurors are the

42:48

only ones who can give us an answer whenever they

42:50

have an answer. So, of course, there's

42:52

acquittal, which he'd be being clear. There

42:55

was a hung jury, which would, you know, just

42:57

one juror would disagree with the rest of them

42:59

and throw it into a situation where the judge

43:01

would likely call a mistrial. And then, of course,

43:03

you would have conviction. I think

43:06

one of the things you have to remember

43:08

in those listening and watching us is this

43:10

case includes 34 counts

43:13

that are very similar to each other. So,

43:15

if he is seen... If

43:17

he is convicted on one count, it is

43:19

likely that the other counts will follow suit.

43:23

Although we just don't know. We don't know.

43:25

But at the same time, this is not

43:27

like a case you might have watched on

43:29

TV where it's one count, you know, wire

43:31

fraud, one count, something else. This is all

43:33

very uniform. It'd be really hard to split

43:35

the baby on these. Right. Right. I

43:37

think that's true. Although, remember, there are batches of

43:39

documents. Like, these counts... Like, there's basically three batches.

43:42

And so I agree with you because they're all the

43:44

same count. It's all the same activity. You're far more

43:47

likely in a case like this to have all or

43:49

nothing. But I

43:51

do think the batches are the one caveat to that where

43:53

it's like, I mean, I guess in theory, the jury could

43:55

decide, well, we'll give them a little there and take a

43:57

little there. Jurors negotiate

43:59

sometimes. Cohen, there's checks. Right. There are different

44:01

batches of documents that are counts. And then there's

44:04

ledger entries, right? Yeah. OK.

44:06

And Shaina, let's bring this to

44:08

you for how

44:11

the jury may be mulling all this over

44:13

and thinking about this. And your

44:17

thoughts on what you'll be

44:19

watching for as the jury finally

44:21

decides. So

44:23

they're only human. Of course, they're thinking about

44:25

it. They're not supposed to be talking to

44:27

anyone about it, including their spouses, their partners,

44:29

their friends. So that's their

44:32

mandate. Hopefully, they're not doing that.

44:36

They will. It's going

44:38

to be very interesting to see

44:40

what notes they sent. If

44:44

they ask for testimony readbacks, it's going to

44:46

be interesting to see which witness they want,

44:48

what readback, which part of that witness's testimony,

44:50

if it's not the whole thing. I

44:53

mean, there is a possibility that we'll be

44:55

getting there for hours or a day or

44:57

a day and a half listening to a

44:59

court reporter reread what the jury already heard,

45:01

reread the transcript. But

45:05

if they ask for one thing or another, I mean,

45:07

there's a possibility that they just give them a laptop

45:09

with every piece of evidence on it.

45:12

It's just never kind of a

45:14

standard thing in New York State

45:16

courts. So they're going to be sending us

45:18

cues. Obviously, the cues are

45:20

not for us. They're for them to

45:22

get through their process. And we're all

45:24

going to sit around and guess what

45:26

it means. It may not

45:28

mean anything. Devlin's right. It's

45:31

very, very impossible to read what these people

45:33

are thinking. Also, we're

45:35

people who have been watching a lot

45:37

of trials. And we know the system.

45:39

And we have a different view of

45:42

it than they do. There are a

45:44

couple of lawyers on the panel. But they're also

45:46

just regular people who don't do this for a

45:48

living, who don't

45:50

witness this kind of thing on a regular basis. So

45:53

they may have a completely different perspective.

45:57

And all of the experts and all of us. who

46:00

have nothing else to do while we're waiting and

46:02

sit around and talk about it. I

46:04

mean, we may be entirely wrong about what

46:06

they're thinking and what direction they're at. Shannon,

46:08

if Trump is found guilty on just one

46:10

count, even if there's

46:12

some weird quirk where he's exonerated on all the others

46:15

or they can't come to a decision on the others,

46:17

he will be convicted of a

46:20

felony, the first former president to be convicted of

46:22

a felony. Do you have a sense that the

46:24

jury has that weight bearing on them? I

46:28

do think so. I think they're diligent people.

46:30

I think they're very smart. I think they've been, I

46:32

mean, we've watched them take notes, many

46:34

of them taking notes the entire time. They look,

46:36

there are times when they look around the courtroom

46:39

just to like take in the scene. They see

46:41

all of us. They know that they're a part of

46:43

history. You know, that might be

46:46

an impression to varying degrees.

46:48

You know, one juror might realize it more than

46:50

others. And

46:53

some of them have expressed being intimidated by that. I

46:55

think there was one juror early on who came in

46:59

after they were kicked and said, this is really, I

47:01

have concerns about what this is gonna

47:03

be. And you know, like they

47:05

get it. They're human, they're smart.

47:09

You know, Manhattan is a borough of a lot

47:11

of educated people. They understand what's

47:13

going on. They see the cameras, they

47:15

see, or they, I'm sure they know there are

47:18

cameras. They see them when they're leaving and

47:20

they see a sea of us in

47:22

the courtroom. They know what this is. I

47:25

don't, they have to put that

47:27

aside in order to reach a verdict or try

47:30

to reach a verdict. And that's a huge ask.

47:32

That is a really big responsibility

47:34

for 12 regular people who are

47:36

going to go back to various,

47:38

you know, routine jobs. So

47:42

I'm hearing James say he doubts an acquittal.

47:44

A clear acquittal happened. And I'm hearing the

47:46

rest of you say it's complicated and we'll wait to

47:48

see what the jurors decide. I

47:51

could see a guilty, I could see any outcome. I

47:54

would put it as a very low probability

47:57

of that. But

48:00

I'm watching Juror 2 who said that they get

48:02

their news from Truth Social. All right. Do

48:07

you want me to weigh in on that? Look,

48:12

every time I've ever interviewed a jury after

48:14

a verdict, I've always thought I sat

48:16

through the whole thing and I'm still not as smart as this

48:18

person. I

48:21

have possibly too much faith in jurors.

48:24

I hope very, very much

48:27

to learn what they think after. I hope they talk

48:29

in some fashion. I think they probably

48:31

will have to just for their own sense

48:35

of well-being. I

48:38

just think jurors are smart and I look forward to

48:40

learning what they decide. Devlin,

48:42

Shaina, James, Rhonda, thank you

48:44

so much. Really appreciate all

48:46

of this. Devlin, Shaina and

48:48

Rhonda will be in New York next week covering

48:51

the final twists and turns of this

48:53

historic trial. We'll

48:55

be here live when the verdict

48:57

is announced. You can catch us on

48:59

air. We'll be broadcasting on youtube.com/Washington

49:02

Post. We'll also be on

49:05

the Washington Post homepage. Our team of James, Rhonda

49:07

and others will be checking in with the reporters

49:10

who are in the court when

49:12

they're ready to come out and they finish

49:14

filing their stories. You can read all of

49:16

Devlin and Shaina's reporting as the days go

49:18

by here. Catch them at the Washington Post

49:20

website through our daily coverage and of course,

49:22

even subscribe to the Trump trials newsletter, which

49:24

lives far beyond this moment, Devlin. You and

49:27

our colleague, Carrie Stein are in it for the

49:29

long haul. We

49:31

will have a new episode of the Trump trials

49:33

sidebar when the verdict is announced as

49:36

well as next Thursday. Even

49:39

if the jury is still mulling it over and reinterpreting

49:41

evidence and reexamining it, we will be

49:43

here to update everyone with all the

49:45

latest. I'm Libby Casey and see you

49:47

then. What's

50:00

up sandwich heads today on Steveos sandwich reviews We've got

50:02

the tips and tricks to the best sandwich order and

50:04

it all starts with this little guy right here Pepsi

50:08

zero sugar parcel to pastrami craving

50:10

a cubano. Yes sounds delicious But

50:12

boom add the crisp refreshing taste

50:14

of Pepsi zero sugar and cue

50:17

the fireworks lunch dinner or late

50:19

night It'll be a sandwich worth celebrating trust

50:21

me your boy is eating a lot of sandwiches in his day

50:23

and the one thing I can Say with absolute fact Every

50:27

bite is better with Pepsi