left. but just ending it at 4:00 and not extending days, giving them full lunch breaks, is that a benefit that jurors are not intensively necessarily in testimony all day long, and well past 4:00. >> and every week they have wednesday off, and next week they have wednesday and friday off, and the week after that, they have monday and wednesday off. it makes the jurors' lives better, and for the judge, that's a good thing. and actually for both sides it's a good thing. >> they're not dozing off. >> exactly. >> i'm going to end with this one thing. she is asking westerhout, when did you start your job and did you have any training or education. she said not formally, no, but we already know donald trump valued loyalty over everything. that's going to do it this hour. thanks for joining us on a historic day, i'm chris jansing

alongside andrea mitchell. our continuing coverage will continue with jose diaz-balart next. good afternoon, great to be with you. i'm jose diaz-balart in for katy tur. it has been a roladex of witnesses. the director of oval office operations, madeleine westerhout is on the witness stand. during her time she was known as trump's gate keeper. westerhout's testimony comes after stormy daniels second round on the stand earlier today. daniel was grilled on the details of the alleged sexual encounter and the $130,000 payment that followed. i want to start with what's happening right now inside the courtroom. joining us from outside the new york city courthouse is nbc news national correspondent yasmin vossoughian, criminal defense attorney, and msnbc legal

analyst, danny cevallos, and new york law school professor and former manhattan assistant district attorney, rebecca. bring us up to speed on what's happening now. >> reporter: i'm not a lawyer. i'm trying to be one on tv. the way i'm seeing this, and the terms are not lawyerly. the way i'm seeing this as an assembly line, what they're establishing after having this kind of huge witness that is stormy daniels. some of the more important witnesses we're hearing from are the ones building the case for the prosecution and getting to the key of what the case is about, right, which is the document, falsifying the business records, and talking about those signed checks by former president donald trump, and paying off or paying michael cohen and that alleged scheme of $35,000 a month, as this retainer, donald trump put it, allies versus what michael cohen

says was his payoff because he had paid stormy daniels $130,000. some of the names we have heard from, ending with madeleine westerhout, who we're hearing from right now in the courtroom. we heard from rhona graff. we heard from deborah tarasoff. you have her cutting these checks in trump tower, walking the checks up to for instance rhona graff when donald trump was not then president to get some of the checks signed by donald trump in his office in trump tower. when donald trump assumed the white house, assumed the presidency, those checks were sent by tracey menzies to the white house and that's where madeleine westerhout picks things up. she was the personal assistant at that point to donald trump, as she's explaining in the

document right now in this testimony, right outside the oval office. she would have been the one, jose, to have taken the checks from the fedex envelope. walks them in to donald trump in the oval office. as we well know now from all of the books read, who have read portions of his books, he signs every check. he knows every number coming out of these checks. walks those checks into donald trump and donald trump subsequently signing these checks, eventually to reimburse and/or pay michael cohen. so they are kind of setting up this scheme, really, to lead to proving that donald trump falsified these documents. >> and they are right now really kind of honing in on just how much access and information

westerhout had about and access with donald trump. if i could, let me go right into some of the questioning that the prosecution is establishing. how long did you work at the white house. yes, two and a half years. did you sit in the same desk in the outer oval the entire two and a half years? i switched desks at some point, she says, further away, had a line of sight to the resolute desk. helpful for the president and i to communicate. the desk where the president sits in the oval office. did you develop an understanding of his work habits, i did, yes, she answers. familiar with the way he used social media and interacted with his family? westerhout, yes. his work habits? >> yes, he likes to be in person or on the feen.

what was his preferred method of communication. westerhout, in person on the phone. mangold, how many calls did he take in a day. as early as 6:00 in the morning. he would be on the phone late in the night when i went to bed because i always felt guilty about that. how did mr. trump receive calls. westerhout, complicated process. the president was in the oval office and had any work number. i could just patch them through to him, but if it was john smith, westerhout said, off the street calling there were operators that took calls, and there were also calls to the situation room for calls that were more secure. did he ever use his computers or e-mails. westerhout, not to my knowledge. he wanted hard copies, so as we continue to kind of listen in

and essentially hear through our reporters there inside the courthouse and in the courtroom. what is, danny, this line of questioning trying to establish? >> it's trying to establish knowledge of donald trump's day-to-day activities, how he was involved, whether he was hands on, whether he was a micro manager. we're going to hear questioning about how he conducted his day and business, and really what we're going to get to short is how the process went when she would bring checks to sign, specifically the michael cohen checks that yasmin shows us on the screen, and that process and how involved he was, and then when we get to cross, i expect that the defense will have to explore whether or not was he distracted? did he sign things without looking at them, and try to paint donald trump as somebody who was intensely involved at every step.

madeleine westerhout, by the way, we have spent a day and a half on stormy daniels whose importance in terms of evidence is minimal compared to the flashy nature of her testimony. we've got a witness that maybe some people have heard of. she may not be on the stand that long. but her testimony in my view is arguably much more critical than the day and a half we spent on stormy daniels. >> and now what they're asking her is, you know, how he spent his time, and westerhout said he spent most of the time when he was there working, reading, going over documents in the dining room. that was really his working office. was there an organization system there? to my understanding the president knew where things were and he kept things organized but he did have a lot of papers. i found that he always knew where things were. what does that tell you right there? >> the prosecution is trying to establish that the former president himself was involved in these payments, and so all of

this is about connecting him to the documents that he signed. trying to make it clear that he didn't just delegate. he didn't sign things without thinking and knowing. there was an organization and system to it. >> it is specifically what you're referring to. the question is he the type of person who paid attention to details. westerhout, in my experience, yes. did he use an automated signature or sign by himself? westerhout, he signed by himself. did he use a particular type of pen. sharpies or felt tip, did he typically read things before signing them. she says, yes. did mr. trump use social media while he was in the white house? westerhout, he did, yes. primarily twitter, now called x. did mr. trump post tweets himself using that twitter handle. once again, this is someone with

firsthand knowledge of the president's use of his time down to who and how he used the social media accounts, clearly she's saying that he was very on top of that as he was about every single document. so earlier we learned in just today that these checks would be fedexed overnight to the white house. if i'm the defense, i'm thinking, we've got an angle here. we can frame this as the president became the president of the united states. the leader of the free world. the guy was busy. this is what the defense is going to try and argue. that when these checks came in, even if he did sign them. he wasn't really looking. he wasn't paying attention. that is what the prosecution knows is coming, and that's why they book ended this. how they ended up at the white house, and now we're hearing the other transaction, how madeline wester house takes the checks in, gets them signed, and i

expect her testimony is going to be good for the prosecution. otherwise why else would they have called her. we're going to hear that donald trump, when he signed the checks, that he did it personally. that he's involved. maybe if he had questions, he would raise the questions. maybe we'll hear that kind of testimony. this is just locking in how the transactions worked, to make it increasingly and increasingly less likely, this is something that flew totally under trump's radar. >> rebecca, micro manager is the word that comes to mind, when one sees donald trump's focus on things. here's the line of questioning going on right now about his process of tweeting from the @real donald trump account. if dan scavino wasn't available, the president would call me in and dictate a tweet to me. i would go back to the computer and type it up and print it out,

and give it back to him so he could go over it. he would dictate, type it up, print a hard copy, take to him for review. he'd edit sometimes the hard copy, ask to make additional changes and show it to him. he liked to use exclamation points. once again this is someone who looks at every single word, every single period, every single exclamation point. >> i'm curious what the defense does about this. it makes him look good. he's involved in his work, diligent, he's a hard worker, and so they obviously have to set up on some level. this was running below his radar. they have to do it without undermining their clients' sense of ego, being built up, unlike stormy daniels. >> someone who cares about how

many exclamation points shows you maybe the time used and the focus you used to have on some things over others may be significant. >> i actually take a different view. i think it doesn't make him look good. he has attention to detail, but if you're the leader of the free world, i would rather you spend time on the middle east, not whether or not your tweets are in caps or exclamation point. tweeting is i take my phone and tweet. this was paper, print it out, come here, approve, all the while, middle east going on. i have no idea how that's being addressed. i'm stepping out of legal analyst and more like a regular person on the jury, who might be thinking this is not how the president should have been spending his time, even if it was attention to detail. but it is important context, and i expect the jury is listening closely. once again, they have called a witness who gives us a glimpse into a world we never had access

to. first it was the world of the "national enquirer," and no matter who the president is, finding that he moved into the dining room to do his business or they had to print out tweets to bring to him to approve. all fascinating and riveting and bad for the defense. >> i think it's difficult for the defense to claim, if the testimony of this witness is given weight, this is somebody who got a check and signed it or one or two or three or four or monthly checks without thinking about it when he's looking at what parentheses to use. i'm going right back to what we're seeing inside that courtroom right now. did he have any particular preferences to his posts. yes, certain words he liked to capitalize, including country capital c. he liked to use dots for a comma, for the first year, man

gold asks, would you describe that as a transition period. westerhout, yes. she continues on to say we were all trying to learn our way around and do the best work we could for the american people. did he ever miss things is the question that mangold asks. westerhout, my understanding is he was attentive to things that were brought to his attention. do you ever have questions of people at the trump organization, and did they have questions for you? yes, mangold, for example, what were some of the major issues at the trump organization in 2017 and who were the people there. rhona graff. and again, this is a time for the defense to be seeing this

person. she worked for the president of the united states. she says that, you know, they were trying to do the best they could for the american people. this is not necessarily a person who, you know, like stormy daniels hates donald trump. if you're the defense, what are you looking at here to rebuttal on. >> i think the best that the defense can do here is to point out the limit of her knowledge and actually, as you suggest, her testimony is very detailed and suggests that she has a great deal of knowledge. nobody knows everything, so the best that they could do is say that, you know, she wasn't there. she didn't necessarily know exactly what he was aware of when he signed this particular check, and that, you know, is poking holes in her testimony even if it isn't undermining the general point that she's making. >> and yasmin vossoughian, outside the courthouse, inside, there is a very steady clear determination of westerhout to

talk about the -- how her boss at the time handled what he did on a minute by minute basis, and how concerned he was about a lot of details. >> reporter: we have been looking for a smoking gun. what is the smoking gun? who's the person that's going to testify that i heard donald trump say this money was for stormy daniels, that's why he was paying off michael cohen. logically it's a problematic smoking gun. there was thought possibly with madeleine westerhout taking the stand that we could feasibly hear that testimony from someone like her. maybe she overheard a conversation happening in the oval. likelihood of this happening, seeing how this question and answer is going is unlikely at this point, although we'll never know until the end of this direct. when you ask jose about the defense, we have to consider the way in which madeleine

westerhout left the white house. she was laid off after serving as the former president's secretary, and a personal assistant, i should say, and the reason why she was laid off was because of an off the record meeting that she had with journalists in talking about some things going on within the trump family and the oval office. just kind of sharing details of the trump family and oval office. i'll be curious to see if in fact in cross-examination they mention that. they bring that up. as we have seen in the past with cross-examination, sometimes their tendency is to go after the credibility of some of these witnesses. she doesn't seem like someone who's going to be on the stand, considering the way it was she actually left her job in 2019. >> danny, how are you preparing if you're in the defense? >> i'm expecting on direct, madeleine westerhout is not going to say, donald trump told me, hey, i'm paying michael

cohen to reimburse him for a payment to stormy daniels. you don't normally have that direct kind of evidence. yes, i admit i rocked a bank. you prove your case by circumstantial evidence. i expect cross-examination will be short. i don't expect it to be particularly hostile. you may hear questions about the circumstances of her leaving. i'm pretty sure you're going to hear some version of a question like donald trump never told you that he was aware he was signing these checks to reimburse michael cohen for anything to do with stormy daniels. he never indicated any of these checks had to do with stormy daniels, did he? we don't know if someone is going to testify, i did hear that conversation. >> that would be a smoking gun moment. >> if it's reliable, direct evidence, if it's reliable testimony, then, yes, that's very bad for trump. in most criminal cases you don't have that testimony. you may have handed him these

checks. may have been there when he signed them. you don't know for sure why he was signing them or that he had any awareness they had anything to do with stormy daniels. it's really a limited avenue for the defense, but that's probably where they're going to go. >> a limited avenue that will be probably less intense than it was with, for example, stormy daniels? >> i think so. i think things got a little bit overheated, given what was going on yesterday and earlier this morning with stormy daniels. i think this is the meat of the case as danny was suggesting. it isn't all that interesting. this is what they're going to have to consider when they consider the elements of the crime. the stormy daniels testimony has to go to motive, which is important, but again, not as important as whether these checks were actually signed with trump's knowledge and intent, and that's what's being established in a workman like way in this system. >> that workman like way includes, for example, who was

on donald trump's rolodex. what are contacts and where do you keep the contacts for friends, allies, whatever sources you have. now the people's exhibit 69b is the contact list, the rolodex of donald trump when he was getting into the white house, and it says this is a contact list of the president. it is my understanding, westerhout, that she put together a list, donald trump's personal assistant at trump tower, a list of people that he spoke to often or might want to speak to and then here's some of the list. manifold is asking westerhout to read the trump family members on the list along with allen weisselberg and david pecker. at the time, i just knew him to

be a tabloid person. who is listed now as row 13. westerhout, michael cohen. this is once again the establishing moment of michael cohen being one of the top people that had access to and knowledge of donald trump. >> this is nothing new. since the dawn of criminal prosecution, personal assistants and secretaries have featured prominently, people that know a subject or a defendant exceptionally well. they have lots to have knowledge about their day-to-day. sometimes more than that person themselves knows about their day-to-day and this is exactly what the prosecution is using madeleine westerhout for. she's going to describe the process of signing checks, getting these checks and the prosecution is going to ask the jury to draw an inference. they're going to ask them to draw an inference that he knew

why he was signing these checks. that's what this evidence is leading up to. westerhout is a critical witness. one of the other things the prosecution is doing well. they're doing this efficiently. they're not keeping witnesses on the stand for an excessive period of time. what that does, at least for me as a defense attorney, is disorienting. when a case is moving quickly it throws you off. shuffling papers, cross-examination already. when you shorten up the time, it shortens up the time for the defense to play improv. that's largely what we're doing. the prosecution is scripting something, a show. the defense is engaging in a form of improv. we hope they follow the script. they normally don't. when a case moves quickly, it can throw off the defense, and that's probably something the prosecution is doing on purpose. >> right now, westerhout is being asked about a specific e-mail they're showing now.

right before that, she was asked, was it your understanding and mr. trump and mr. cohen had a close relationship. at that time, yes. did michael cohen ever visit the white house in 2017. westerhout, i believe he did, yes. and then they're putting up this exhibit, people's exhibit 39-1. it's an e-mail, and the text of the e-mail says, michael cohen, we are firmed for 4:30 p.m. on wednesday. what i need from you is the following, full name as it appears on your i.d., date of birth, social security, all the requirements that you have to have in order to be given access to enter the white house. what is that? westerhout, that's an e-mail to cohen. this is what the establishing of access to understanding of what donald trump thought, did, and how he acted on almost a

minute-by-minute basis is what the prosecution is establishing right now. thank you so much for being with us. yasmin vossoughian, danny cevallos, stick with us, we have much more on msnbc, with special coverage of former president trump's hush money trial when we return. trial when we return ♪♪ mom genes. she passed them down to you. but who passed them to her? those mom genes helped make her who she is. show her with ancestrydna. this mother's day, she can see the traits she inherited, the places where they started, and the people she shares them with. best of all, it's on sale for mother's day. get it now, before she has to remind you. nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt.

allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. - so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady.

all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. you want thicker, stronger, fuller hair? you need expert skincare. new dove scalp + hair therapy serum active skincare ingredients targets the source of beautiful hair. your scalp for visibly thicker, stronger, fuller hair. (ella) fashion moves fast. your scalp for visibly setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility.

(marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. >> tech: does your windshield have a crack? trust safelite. this customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home... ...so he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... then we got to work. we replaced his windshield... ...and installed new wipers to protect his new glass. >> customer: looks great. thank you. >> tech: my pleasure. >> vo: we come to you for free. schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

and they're all coming? those who are still with us, yes. grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly. 29 past the hour right now. donald trump's former white house executive assistant and director of oval office operations, madeleine westerhout is on the witness stand.

she's being questioned about the former president's relationship with michael cohen, and right now she's being asked about the president's conversations with communications with or any kind of association with allen weisselberg, and clearly the prosecution is trying to establish there was a direct link with weisselberg, which is still donald trump's enterprises, his financial empire. the communication that was going on between them. among other things. just an e-mail that westerhout sent to trump's assistant. can you please send this to allen weisselberg from the president. he sent it to his family, and wanted allen to see it as well. and she says in that e-mail, first time boarding air force one. was it common for mr. trump to send newspaper clips to his family and weisselberg? westerhout, yes. was it your understanding that trump and weisselberg had a close relationship in 2017. she says i'm not sure i can speak to the specifics of their

relationship. i understand them to be close. does this not strike you as unusual, westerhout, no. another exhibit, the cover of the "new york times" with trump boarding air force one for the first time. mangold, what if anything is your understanding of how mr. trump's personal expenses were handled in 2017. it is my understanding, she responds, they were handled by checks. westerhout continues, checks were sent from the trump organization to an employee at the white house and brought them in for the president to sign. westerhout continues. they were originally sent to keith schiller and later to me. what did you when you received these checks? westerhout, the checks came in a federal express envelope, so i opened the envelope, and inside is a manila folder with a stack of checks, and i brought the folder in for him to sign.

mangold, anything other than checks? westerhout, i didn't really dig around in the folder, but there were invoices attached to checks sometimes. and you said that you brought them in? yes. westerhout says. state attorney for palm beach county dave aronberg as we monitor what was said in the courtroom. how do you see things going right now with westerhout? what is it that the prosecution is establishing or trying to establish? >> good to be with you, jose. this is circumstantial evidence to pre-butt michael cohen's direct evidence that ties trump directly to the falsification of business records. this is nuts and bolts. it's important. it's not as exciting as stormy daniels. we need to as prosecutors try to help a flawed witness. michael cohen is a flawed witness. you bring in people who have no ax to grind, even though

madeleine westerhout was essentially fired from the employ of the white house, she doesn't have hate or animosity, she's there to testify truthfully, and it's a good breather after the salacious testimony from stormy daniels. we sort of need to come down from that and get back to the facts, the blocking and tackling of this case. >> now, i mean, there are clearly peaks and valleys of intensity and emotion, and sometimes even of these odd things that happened. what do you make of the prosecution's structure, witness structure so far? >> oh, it's smart, and you hit it right, jose, when you talk about peaks and valleys. you don't want to come on strong to overwhelm jury, you have to give them time to take it in. you have to intersperse the

boring witnesses. i think it's definitely a come down for the jury after the intensity of stormy daniels, and so i think they're structuring it right. the whole basis of the case, though, is to build this fire wall around michael cohen. he is the key witness. he's probably the only one who can establish through direct evidence that donald trump was aware of this whole scheme. he was the one responsible for the falsification of the business records, and how do you help him? you help through other witnesses, corroboration, and that's what this is about. >> let's talk a little bit about daniels, and how did she do today during today's cross-examination, do you think? >> i thought she did better today than yesterday. so over the day off, it looks like lawyers for the state got to her and perhaps said, hey, just answer the question you're asked. don't fight with the lawyer. you have more facts than they do. you can call them out when they're wrong, and just, you know, chill out a little bit.

and she definitely seemed to be chill on the stand more so than the previous couple of days where she was talking so fast and she was answering questions that weren't answered and she had to get admonished by judge merchan. i thought that stormy daniels seemed much calmer, much better prepared than the defense lawyer who made a few mistakes. she was going at her really too hard, i thought, and she had to correct herself, because she didn't have all the facts on her side. i thought today was a good day for stormy daniels, and thus a good day for the prosecution. >> even though the defense was almost to a repetitive nature highlighting or going after inconsistencies in what she had said in the different interviews and the whole issue of how much she was paid, how many porno movies she was involved in, and then that was almost like a recurring question, dave.

what's the reasoning behind that? >> you want to try to show her to be a liar, but is everyone lying? they all seem to have the same general story here, and you know, whether she was in 150 adult films or 250. that was one of the disputes, does it really matter? is that material to the case? the lies or misstatements are kind of on the edges or on the fringes. i think they tried to show her to be not credible in front of the jury. the jury has been with stormy a couple of days, and over a day off to have her on the mind, i think they have grown to like her a bit. it's not so easy to make her look bad in front of this jury, especially when the defense lawyer was going after her hard. she was really aggressive and sarcastic, and i don't think that's a good look in front of the jury. i think that today overall, stormy daniels did well, better than before.

>> david aaronberg. joining us now is catherine christian and danny cevallos. what would you, talk about peaks and valleys, emotional peaks and valleys, this is kind of like a systematic with westerhout, like, okay, whose side is donald trump that signed, who got them, who sent them, how were they sent? how were they opened? who opened them? what is the purpose of this part? >> the most important witnesses in this case are the boring ones, because this is a falsifying business records case, the checks, the invoices, the ledger entries, the prosecution is going to have a problem if the jury is debating whether or not donald trump had sex with stormy daniels. this is not a sex crime case, this is a falsifying business records case. ms. westerhout has built in credibility. she was in the oval office, she was the executive assistant.

she knows who's coming it in and out. that photo that donald trump sent to weisselberg shows he had contact while he was in the white house. >> and he wanted him to see his first time on air force one. >> important person in his life. so it will not be, the prosecution would argue, weisselberg and cohen did not go rogue. they did exactly what donald trump wanted them to do. so the defense argument is cohen went rogue, he never spoke to weisselberg in the white house, we know he was sending him something, he was proud of him. i want my buddy, my loyal weisselberg to see me going on air force one. so that's why she's important, important establishing the chain of custody of the checks and invoices and ledger entries. >> interesting. the question was how important or how did donald trump send that photo of "the new york times" with donald trump for the first time on air force one to whom? to his family? and to weisselberg.

those two. it's tying in. >> they're equal. weisselberg was a family member, which is probably why he's in rikers island now because he refused to testify against donald trump. >> the defense can have already a pre-planned strategy of how to deal with the prosecution's different witnesses, but when this comes up, how do you rebut this? >> when you're on the defense, you have a few options. you can come up with your own theory of the case, alternate theory of the case. for example, i think the only alternate theory left to this defense is donald trump may have signed checks but he didn't know that the checks were going to michael cohen, and why they were going to michael cohen, but sometimes if you can't come up with an alternate theory, you just retreat to they're all eyeing. and that is a lot of what the defense is trying to do on cross. the problem with that is that everybody can't possibly be

lying. i want to yes and to what catherine said. i couldn't agree with her more that so far boring witnesses have been the most important. we had two days of stormy daniels testimony. we had one event that's the most likely issue if there's a conviction on appeal to overturn the conviction is because they chose to call stormy daniels and it's my opinion, they didn't need her. they didn't need her because they had testimony from her lawyer, keith davidson, they have locked in the transaction that michael cohen paid stormy daniels. is there any doubt to that, any reasonable doubt at this point? you may need stormy daniels to talk about the market value of her story as the election approached, but you got that from other sources too. what would it look like if we deleted stormy daniels, unimpeachable witnesses like madeleine westerhout and hope hicks, the case is stronger without her. >> when and why did things go

off the rails with stormy daniels? she clearly is a witness for the prosecution. she had been in contact with the prosecution. when and how do things go off the rails. >> let's be candid. the prosecution is taking a calculated risk. they took a risk, calling a witness that they knew they would have little control over. and david aaronberg, i think he's right. overnight, the last two days, the prosecution got in touch with stormy, and said, hey, dial it down a little bit. you don't have to fight on every question on cross-examination, it's not a good look. i don't know that that happened, it feels like it happened. the prosecution knew they were getting a benefit from calling stormy that had little to do with the underlying evidence. it was to make trump look bad. the satin pjs, him in his boxers, asking about condoms, the sex talk made him look bad, like a philanderering, but when you play with character

evidence, you might get burned on appeal. that's exactly what happened to harvey weinstein to that case. it's a risk. it's a calculated risk. >> you mentioned this the other day, about the possibility, but what is the cost-benefit analysis that has to be taken, when you have, as a prosecution, someone like stormy daniels? >> you limit, and they might also, the prosecution, rethink calling karen mcdougal as a witness because judge merchan's ruling that she could be called was before the new york state court of appeals overturned harvey weinstein's conviction because of too much prejudicial information. they don't need karen mcdougal. to have her get up there and talk about the sex she had with donald trump, it's already been proven that she received $150,000 from ami. basically he's not charged with that. he's charged with the stormy daniels, $130,000 and covering that up. they might want to rethink calling her because what's the point of getting a conviction just to get it reversed. >> i want to bring in national

correspondent yasmin vossoughian once again who can catch us up on what exactly is happening inside that courtroom. >> reporter: so an interesting, moment, jose, that's important to bring up, and lisa rubin has brought it to our attention, and it is whether or not the former president returned any of these checks, and what i mean by returned is did not, in fact, sign them. we remember from the testimony of westerhout, she was asked how many checks were in the fedex envelope, 10 to 20 checks were usually in the fedex envelope, which the former president would sign himself, oftentimes with a black sharpie, and then was subsequently asked, did he return any of these checks, and lisa are reporting that in fact, madeleine westerhout saying for the most part, he never returned the checks. if he had questions, held reach out to his former cfo, chief financial officer, allen weisselberg, who's now serving time, by the way, to ask him questions about some of the checks that were in the

envelope. but in fact, he never would return them without being signed from her memory. one other thing i want to mention, they're focusing on invoices that were included in the fedex envelope. she was asked, anything else in these envelopes besides these checks, and she said sometimes there would be invoices. if you remember back to, i believe, deborah tarasoff's testimony, she talked about the invoices, ledger, checks as well. when we did the math as to what the prosecution was taking us to, that listed the 34 indictments to the falsifying of the business records, 12 counts for ledgers, 11 counts for invoices, and checks. that is why it's so integral, i think, for the prosecution to close this loop with madeleine westerhout when it came to the invoices that were also showing up in this fedex envelope. >> and from that, and some of the invoices, you talk about

detailed granular look at how money was coming out. there was a moment when there was a picture that apparently trump had asked to be put in a frame. and that frame was $650 minus a 15% discount. did donald trump want to spend that much? and apparently it was a photo of what i remember to be his mother, so he wanted a nice frame. did he approve of it? and then the issue is that even on a $650 photo frame, which i didn't know they existed, but even for a $650 frame, they were asking for his permission, but here, yasmin, is right now the prosecution is getting into do you recall what happened when the stormy daniels story hit. mangold says, do you remember trump's reaction. westerhout, i remember, he was very upset by it.

do you recall if trump spoke to michael cohen around the time the story came out? westerhout, i believe they spoke around that time, yes. yasmin, it continues. >> reporter: yeah, and they go on to say, did you interact with mrs. trump. they're talking about part of the defense theory, if you remember the cross-examination when it came to hope hicks, what was donald trump concerned about when the "access hollywood" tape came out, and sequentially when the rumors started to swirl and hope hicks learned of karen mcdougal and stormy daniels and talked about with hope hicks during cross-examination, how he was most concerned with his family, his wife, not his wife wanting to find out. hence one of the reasons why it seems as if the prosecution is getting into the testimony here, but of course how important it is to understand the state of mind when it comes to stormy daniels and the former president of the united states who was then president, sitting in the oval office. one more thing, jose, i'll say to you about the $650 frame.

i think that was a two-fold thing here for the prosecution. speaking of which, yes, the details of what they're getting, right, the communication, the details this they were getting between these e-mails, but also speaking to the frugality of donald trump, a billionaire as he says he is. he's written books about this, but wanting to be concerned about spending $650 on a picture frame. i didn't know that existed either. if you have that much money, you would expect someone to spend that much money on a picture frame. if he's willing to spend money, concerned about spending that much money on that. right? why would he not be concerned about paying michael cohen $420,000 including his taxes. >> yes, and now we understand from inside the courtroom, we're being told westerhout has started crying on the stand. the line of questioning that apparently got her to be emotional is this, and i'm going to go through it with you and when they ask westerhout about the relationship between donald

trump and his wife, mangold says, were you familiar with their relationship. how would you describe that relationship. westerhout says of mutual respect, i found their relationship really special. i know he cares a lot about her opinion. westerhout continues, there's really no one else who could put him in his place too. he was my boss, but she was definitely the one in charge. i remember thinking that their relationship was really special. they laughed a lot when she came into the oval office. he once in a while told me to call her to tell her that he was running late. did anything about their relationship change after the stormy daniels story came out, mangold asks her, and westerhout says, not that i recall. westerhout agrees and continues to say, i got dinner. i said some things that i should not have said. that mistake ultimately cost me my job. and that is where apparently she

starts getting emotional on the stand, saying i learned a lot from my experience. i have grown a lot since then. she continues, and she's asked, do you need a minute. she says i'm okay. she says through her tears. and so, yasmin, this is a part where it is in contrast to stormy daniels who said outright, i hate the guy. here she is saying what i saw in him was a special relationship, and that she learned a lot with her time with him. >> reporter: so and this is why it's so amazing to be covering this thing because it's all part of this puzzle, jose. all of this testimony that we're hearing from, and the way in which the prosecution set this up. first of all, we somewhat saw a similar circumstance with hope hicks when she broke down momentarily on the stand. part of which seemed to be in

talking about donald trump's family, what he has done for her over time. hope hicks worked for donald trump for a much longer time than madeleine westerhout did, and obviously went up in the ranks when it came to her career, grew considerably, was incredibly close to the family, and we know, obviously from the publisher and the earlier testimony before this, talking about donald trump's loyalty, right, madeleine westerhout, sitting outside donald trump's office, kind of understanding the gravity and the nature of her testimony, what it could feasibly do to the former president. just reminding folks, when i was in the courtroom, a couple of days ago. madeleine westerhout is sitting 15 feet away from donald trump, 2 feet away from the jury testifying about his wife, melania trump. you can kind of understand how especially as you're sitting so close to the former president of the united states, and their former boss. >> and she apparently just was continuing to be emotional until right just right now, when the prosecution has concluded its

time with this witness and, of course, now the defense has started. and let me just go into some of that once again. necheles the attorney for donald trump. and she starts by asking her, you were very young at the white house. you made mistakes. remember that's exactly how the prosecution finished the questioning with her, talking about the -- what had happened to her at the white house and why she was no longer there. so then the defense is now starting with that same kind of logic. you were very young at the white house and you made mistakes. westerhout, yes. she has -- this is color from inside the courtroom, she has perked up. necheles says, president trump forgave you, right? westerhout, he did. i didn't have anything negative to say in the book, she says. during the 2016 election before he won, you were working for the rnc.

question, the answer yes. you still didn't know him when you worked for the campaign. no, i did not. necheles "access hollywood" tape, always some event, someone said he was not going to win. westerhout, yes. necheles, there was always some event that causes consternation for a couple of days. answer, yes, there was always some event that everybody said that's it. not president trump, correct? westerhout, nope. he did not freak out about any of this, necheles says. westerhout no he did not. he kept his mind working on the election and running to win. joining us now is senior national political correspondent for the "washington post," msnbc political analyst, ashley parker. great seeing you. just what are your thoughts when you're hearing this part, right, and just there, right before the prosecution wrapped up its questioning, kind of bringing in

donald trump's day-to-day, his activities, how he wrote his tweets, edited them, who did, and then his relationship with his wife. how did you see that part? >> well, in watching or hearing about madeleine's testimony it did, as you guys were discussing a bit earlier, remind me of hope hicks' in the sense that these were people who -- which ever way they found themselves to trump's orbit with madeleine it happened later they were close to him. they felt tremendous loyalty and they got into a bit of madeleine she said making mistakes, sharing some information with the media about his family she shouldn't have shared and losing her job because of that, and what struck me is that just gives you a sense of how close she was to the former president, to that inner circle, when you sit where she sat, when you had that relationship with him, when the white house was run the way he ran it, which was not -- with

a typical chart, she's someone who would have been privy and able to talk about as she did, everything from his relationship with the former first lady to potentially things that she would have had no business playing a role in, but that's how that white house worked for people like her, who were so close to trump. >> yeah. i mean, ashley, if you could, give us a little bit more of a kind of a picture of how that white house was run and how different it was from any other white house? >> oh, gosh. i can give you so many examples. i will give you two quick ones and show you how different it was from any other white house. one thing that someone, a top person around the former president said to me once, always stuck in my mind trying to explain how it operated, they said look, if lara trump was in the oval in the west wing with her sorority sisters trump would

turn to them and say what do you think i should do on afghanistan. he was someone who loved getting a lot of inputs and wouldn't necessarily turn to the -- only the experts on that area and it could be like a grand central or a union station with other presidents i've covered to get an interview, you know, it's negotiated weeks in advance, and it's a certain time and there's a whole back and forth and certainly in the early days of trump, which was when all of this was going on, with stormy daniels, you would sometimes be in the briefing room or talking to the press secretary and someone would pop in and say, hey, do you want to follow me down the hall and come chat with president trump. it was just far more casual than what you would expect for a white house than what any other modern white house, current or past, has been like, at least that i've covered. >> ashley, this kind of goes to what i think a lot of prosecution is getting at, but didn't you get a sense that this

was someone who was keenly aware of coverage about him and his administration, in the press? in other words, yes, all presidents are going to be keenly aware of coverage, but did you get a sense maybe in his case, there was a lot more of that? >> oh, absolutely. i mean, we knew exactly ha shows he watched and we reported on lawmakers or other people, just walking off the set of say "morning joe" and 10 seconds later getting a call from the then president saying, i liked what you said or i -- why did you say that? so this wasn't someone who was getting it from his aides. this was someone who at least for periods of time was really absorbing this at his own initiative in real time. and as much as he loved tv, he really cared about the front

pages of the major papers, "new york times," "the washington post," of the "wall street journal" and covering had his aides sometimes there were warring factions and some leaks to the press. i asked, you know, you're a top adviser go down to the oval office, you can walk into, and make your case to the president, and, you know, it was sort of explained to me sometimes this president was more persuaded through the filter of tv. so him seeing something on fox news or on msnbc, would make him change a decision more than a vigorous debate in the oval office. >> ashley parker with us, insight, very few people have. thank you very much. joining us is former federal prosecutor in the doj criminal division and assistant counsel to robert mueller, thank you for being with us. just your thoughts on what right now is going on in that courtroom? >> what is going on in this courtroom is each of the lawyer teams is listing information

they need for their closing arguments. when i was a prosecutor, when i was a defense attorney, i always wrote my closing arguments first. i knew what my narrative was, and i knew i wanted from each witness to allow me to make that narrative. i think that's what we're seeing here. each side is jockeying for a few points to add to their narrative to say on trump's side, is it credible that he would have known what was going on here, given how much of a micro manager he was, especially about money and on the defense side, you got a rogue employee, michael cohen, with his own agenda, who kept trump in the dark and we don't have any direct evidence and there's reasonable doubt. each of these witnesses is playing their own part in the shaping of that closing argument narrative. >> so michael, now, the defense is establishing westerhout's knowledge of the closeness with the former president and his family. the question he's just being asked, he had a very close

relationship with his children, very close. close relationship with his wife. yes. what is the defense attempting to do here? >> well, they're humanizing trump as best they can, and they're trying to create the probability that trump was not motivated by the "access hollywood" tape and signed the deal with stormy daniels, but rather concern for his family. her testimony that there was a crisis every day, and trump just let it roll off his shoulders, so if that was the case, then stormy and "access hollywood" was another event which is no big deal, but the family mattered most. therefore, there is reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's theory of the case. >> michael and danny and katherine, thank you so much for being with me this hour. that's it for us today. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now.

♪♪ hi, everyone. happy thursday. it's 4:00 in new york. the woman with the story that led to that six figure hush money payment, a cover-up and ultimately the first ever criminal trial and an american ex-president came under fire from donald trump's defense team. composed and steely stormy daniels was on the stand for hours, what felt like days, of cross-examination, and then the rather brief redistrict when the prosecutors got to go back and talk to her again. the trial for donald trump is still under way right now on the stand as we speak. the ex-president's former assistant, her name is madeleine westerhout. she told the jury that donald trump played -- paid very close attention to his finances even when he was in the white house. but we begin with donald trump's defense team throwing the kitchen sink at stormy daniels. they w