♪♪ 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 were trying to portray her

at times as money grubbing, inconsistent, driven by personal hatred, even rolling out that she's crazy line of attack against her. at one point attorney susan necheles said you have, quote, a lot of experience making phony stories about sex. to which daniels replied wow that's now how i would put it. the sex in the films is real just like what happened to me in that room. to try to prove that stormy daniels profited off her association with donald trump, trump's defense lawyers pointed out stormy sold merchandise to which stormy daniels fired back, quote, not unlike mr. trump. team trump also suggested that stormy daniels opposed trump politically and wanted to take him down. a line of questioning that comes with a lot of risks for the ex-president's team. as nbc news reports the defense spent considerable time trying to prove that daniels had a political motive for wanting to out trump's story, trying to

hurt his election bid. wouldn't that bolster the prosecution's arguments trump had -- for wanting to silence her. the d.a.'s office reminded everyone donald trump is the only person on trial, not stormy daniels, bringing up a devastating piece of evidence. they asked stormy daniels about an admission by michael cohen and trump in a lawsuit that donald trump had reimbursed cohen the $130,000 for the nda with stormy daniels. the prosecution in this line of argument points out even if she has made money from her association with trump her fame has come at a steep price. stormy daniels said she has had to deal with an avalanche of threats, deal with legal fees, prosecutor susan hoffman asked her on balance has your publicity been -- has publicly telling the truth about donald trump been a net positive or net negative for your life? stormy daniels replied,

negative. a defiant stormy daniels on the stand on day 14 of the trump election interference hush money trial, is where we begin today with some of our most favorite reporters and friends. with us for the hour, "new york times" investigative reporter susan craig, joining us, msnbc legal analyst andrew weissmann, plus former executive editor with american media inc and special correspondent for the "hollywood reporter." lockland cartwright is back. we will start with nbc's von hillyard joining us from outside the courthouse. von, i read political threaters and i kind of hate them, but i kind of love them, but i hate when the tension is so much that reading them makes me feel sick and reading the transcript and the vitriol that was directed at stormy daniels at some points, i had that physical reaction to the aggressiveness with which i'll just say it, they tried to

slut shame her and the slut shaming came in the form aren't all your adult films fake. i thought she -- i have no idea what the jurors were thinking, how they experienced her direct examination and, therefore, no idea how they would have experienced the cross-examination, but as a woman, as someone who has covered the trump story now for nine years, i thought the disparaging treatment of stormy daniels is an example in how class has entered into this trial. hope hicks weeping, people rush to bring her tissues. stormy daniels, whose story trump thought would make people so uncomfortable he paid to keep it quiet seemed to be treated differently than anybody else. >> what you saw today inside of that courthouse was a woman owning her story repeatedly for hours, owning her story. a former president of the united states hired a defense attorney, nicole, sue necheles, and that

defense attorney went on the attack against that individual stormy daniels and tried to undercut her story, tried to extract the idea that there were discrepancies in her story in every step of the way. stormy daniels fought back against the suggestion that somehow her story of -- had changed and she said look, if i wanted to write a thriller, right, she goes, i would have written a different story. if that story was untrue i would have written it to be a lot better. susan necheles asked her your story has completely changed. stormy daniels replied not at all. you're trying to make me say it has changed but it hasn't changed. let's start with the fact that donald trump coming into this trial had repeatedly issued blanket denials about his involvement and his engagements with stormy daniels out of the one photo outside of the one photo on at that golf tournament. what stormy daniels when she testified she testified that they had met up the night after with ben roethlisberger, they had two to three phone calls for

weeks following the 2006 interaction. she was invited to an event in hollywood in 2007. he invited her to trump tower where they met to talk about her potentially appearing ones "celebrity apprentice" and donald trump's attorney who was the individual allowed to be that voice inside that courtroom, did not question her on a litany of those alleged corruption she claimed to have had with donald trump. instead, the attorney focused on a couple questions whether she had dinner with donald trump on that one night stand in 2006. questioned her on the 2011 parking lot incident. by and large over the course of hours under cross-examination, stormy daniels stood by her story and stood by the fact that she appeared in 150 porn films. she stood by the need to make money for her and her family. she stood by the allegations she made against the former president of the united states in the current presumptive republican nominee for the white house in 2024.

nicole? >> andrew weissmann, your thoughts? >> right now, there is one person, if you look at what happened in that room, her testimony, there was one person who has testified under oath and been cross examined aggressively for a full day, if you added in tuesday and today. the other person has said, without any sort of accountability for it, that it didn't happen, but he has not testified to it. this reminds me of the impeachments where he could have testified. he was happy to not do that. he constantly is trying to avoid any situation where he will be held to account? >> trump. didn't come in for mueller or either impeachments, hasn't testified at any of these trials about this. and so no accountability. the difference in the way she

was treated when what she's talking about is a consensual relationship and think about how she was treated in the last day with david pecker, he testified he needed immunity because of his -- because what he was revealing was criminal. it was an effort to, per his words, intentionally defame people with an agreement with donald trump to do that, to intentionally catch and kill the defendant. that is the bottom line. because it's a woman, people who relate to readily and because this is what she undergoes. you know, could hear her and i really wish people could hear it and not hear it secondhand from us.

i was so interested today because i wasn't there tuesday and, you know, my impression, having seen lots of trials, and i'm not speaking for the jury. >> no. >> it was kind of a home run. >> for who? >> for the witness. >> in what way? >> susan necheles she did what she had to do. a lot of times you try different things in cross-examination and they don't all land. there were certain lines of cross that you knew were going to be a given which is she said she can speak to the dead and she had a good explanation for that. she wants to make money from this. she had a good explanation, it's not that it didn't -- it happened and she wants to make money, it's not that it's fake and she wanted to make money from it. so much else just felt by the wayside including i thought something that was sort of touching and heartbreaking and shows that the witness is smart, is careful, unflappable, where

she said, no, you don't understand, all i'm saying about donald trump, the worst thing he did, is he lied about what happened. everything else that happened in that room is on me. it's my fault. it was so -- >> which was the heart of her direct testimony, that i laid there and couldn't figure out between myself how i got here. >> it was a moment where she was saying, i am not blaming anyone else and at one point, susan necheles is trying to say, you're a strong, powerful woman, you could have just walked out. she goes, i'm stronger now. >> yeah. >> as opposed to when she was 20. >> what strikes me is what trump said to her, is you are just like my daughter ivanka. you are smart and attractive and underestimated. and what seemed to be on trial

today was how she acts in every day and year after that. what do you think the prosecution did right and wrong in terms of keeping her testimony and her story focused on what is alleged to be criminal? >> so i think that the one thing that i think may have gone too far on direct is, you have a witness who on cross, was so good about saying, it's on me. that we may all think that's not totally accurate, but that's -- >> with sex. >> that's how she thinks about it. i fault myself for putting myself in that position. he can be faulted for lying about it. and i think i would have tried to hit that theme of how she's viewing it more on how did that come out more on direct. it's a little hard to fault the

direct because she was so clearly, she was nervous. i think susan huffinger the d.a. is nervous. having done big cases you really shouldn't discount that, that, you know, this is her first big witness in the trial, and so, you know, i think everyone talked too fast. i think people didn't get a strong sense of stormy daniels and everyone's reaction that i talked to, she did better, that the witness did better on cross because she sort of settled in, she didn't want to have words put in her mouth. you really got a sense of, you know, she's -- she seems very comfortable in her skin in terms of who she is and she was not going to let, you know, her story be mischaracterized. very impressive. >> when you -- i think what's so interesting is everyone's down the bottom of the rabbit hole of the story, whatever anyone

thinks of the story and the person telling it, trump didn't want the story and the person telling it to tell it before people voted in 2016, and so it's fascinating that everyone is reacting to their own reactions, human, female, male, otherwise, the sex, our country that cannot deal in a comfortable way of anyone's telling sex, sex between an adult film actor and a president, but whatever it is that we feel about that story, trump didn't want us to feel it before election day 2016. >> correct. as i'm hearing on tuesday and on watching her today, nicole, it hit me. you don't break an nda because you're having a laugh. you don't put yourself through this two days because it's fun. she spoke about having to move several times for her daughter's safety. the legal bills. thousands of dollars of legal bills breaking my nda. she's putting herself through the most intense scrutiny and every time they tried to hit her she came back and kept sort of

pushing back and, you know, she was incredibly resilient on the stand. >> what does that mean? >> going into that, this is what they're going to do. undermine her credibility say she's in it for the money, she's crazy, the same things people say when they go on the record and try to undercut them. she was able to push back to the level she came across as genuine. >> what does that mean? >> she's telling the truth. she's telling the truth. >> von, you have breaking news about a decision about karen mcdougal, explain. >> right. just getting this in here right now. karen mcdougal is not going to be called by the district attorney's office to come forward as a witness here in this trial of donald trump. karen mcdougal, if the prosecution had brought her forward, would have be been able to corroborate the infidelity of donald trump. she said she engaged in a

ten-month extramarital affair with him, but also there was the testimony from stormy daniels that they both were invited and introduced to one another by donald trump in 2007 in los angeles at a trump vodka event, so, of course, we'll wait to hear why the prosecution is choosing not to bring forward as a witness, but potentially here, you know, from my own surmising one could suggest that they would have felt the need to bring her forwarded if they felt like the jury was not wholly convinced about the credibility of stormy daniels' story and the truthfulness in which she conveyed the details of their relationship and why donald trump would have intended and been incentivized to silence not only her story but karen mcdougal's as well. karen mcdougal will not take the stand. >> what do you think? >> i think it's smart because let's just focus on the legal lens, not the political lens. the legal lens, it does not

matter whether these people were telling the truth or not. i mean, we know, everyone in that courtroom has been told, no one is challenging that doorman's story was false. >> right. >> it still was part of the catch and kill. david pecker. there was no challenge in that. the deal was that his story needs to be squashed because it will be damaging. and so whether you believe all three of these or none of them -- >> your point is, the prosecution risks getting bogged dawn in trying to prove or disprove the doorman, stormy and mcdougal, when what's at issue is trump's documents and the bank records silencing all three. >> exactly. also the more you go down that rabbit hole, the more the defense is going to -- they're going to say it any way, the more there's more validity saying you just want to tar the defendant with this. this isn't really about this criminal case. you're throwing spaghetti against the wall.

>> trump does. >> exactly. >> spaghetti against the wall. >> i was like oh, well. you protect yourself from that saying look we're not trying to -- the reason this -- we've done what we did, we did this surgically and stormy daniels had to give details to do this. you don't have to believe her because she's -- she's really an exhibit. this is the story they did not want the flouk hear. it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. this is exactly what hope hicks has said that donald trump said to her, i am so grateful to michael cohen for paying the hush money payments because we only have to deal with this now, not before the election. that's it. it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. now, if the -- >> helps. >> does believe it's true it does give an additional motive because it's easier to refute a fake story than a real story.

>> i'm dying to know what's in your head, because you were back in court, i want to put on my glasses and read all of it. what strikes me as you're sort of the journalist that has followed the money for all these, i mean, the money that trump paid was paid to keep exactly what stormy daniels said on direct and cross away from the -- >> that's right. that's powerful and i think that point will probably be made on summation. it's true. it's great if it's true and happened, but it doesn't matter. the money was paid to silence the information, whether it was true or not. donald trump didn't want any of this to get out, and so i think it's -- that's a -- it's going to come down to those and those receipts going through a lot of i think the powerful testimony this week and i sat through this monday, the invoice after invoice put into the record to

verify the 34 counts, it was really powerful. i think that that's sort of where i think we're going to start to see some of the focus shift, as we move into possibly michael cohen next week. but today i have to say, it was -- it was really uncomfortable being in there. >> why? >> i just think they brought the nuts and sluts heavy and i felt heavy -- i started feel uncomfortable listening to the cross. it just went on and on and it was slut shaming. it was. >> nuts and sluts. it almost methodic way every question bounced back between you're crazy, you have sex on camera, you're too crazy to know the difference. >> they had to go down that route but how far they went down it. >> felt like a choice. >> they kept going back and back. stormy daniels, it was so impressive to see her when she was right going back and forth with susan necheles, she would

ask her one of the questions was, she said, you said that you would be instrumental in putting nim jail and stormy is like, show me where i said that. had she said it? susan necheles had to pull up an exhibit and the exhibit didn't say that. this happened over and over. stormy daniels was right on that. she didn't accept one thing. sometimes when a lawyer asks you that, you'll say yes, i said it without -- sometimes you wrongly agree to that and she didn't give an inch several times stormy daniels caught her and there was some back pedalling that went on. i think the strength -- i saw a strong woman on the stand today. >> i wondered when i saw that, so what she's testified to in direct is a power imbalance, right, and the sex is the sex, and again, it's what trump sought to keep quiet. what i thought was amazing, we have no idea how the jury will respond, what i thought was amazing what stormy testifies to in direct on tuesday, is a power

imbalance that susan necheles replayed over and over and over. because it's only someone powerful who thinks that they can on cross get a witness to admit to something they never said. >> stormy was having none of it. like it was -- it was so powerful because you do think and i was thinking about the two of them today, donald trump and stormy daniels, back in 2006 and what that looked like at the time, forget who they are today, stormy daniels was in her 20s, she was an adult film star looking to get -- >> >> there she is. >> looking to get on the "celebrity apprentice." >> that's what trump dangled. >> it was the casting couch. >> it was weinstein-esque, and he played it. >> and to carry the metaphor out, what's happening legally in court, andrew weissmann, trump is relitigating the gag order to be permitted to attack a witness in his own criminal trial. is that going to work? >> it should not.

this has been -- this has been upheld already in new york. it is modelled after the d.c. gag order that has been appealed and upheld. it was slightly narrowed. the new york one, the narrowed one, i mean, especially given his history. you know, just so everyone understand, there is -- the judge has said, there is nothing in this gag order that prevents donald trump from attacking joe biden. there is not one word about political attacks that he can engage in. so -- >> also allowed to attack alvin bragg i believe. >> and the judge. >> judge merchan. we can all have our views about whether it should be broader and cover them. >> why would he want to attack stormy daniels? why would he want permission to attack stormy daniels in the arena of public opinion but not take the stand in his own legal defense? >> well, so this is -- because this is donald trump.

i mean he is going to be a disaster -- you know i've been through this personally, he was never going to examine into the mueller investigation. >> correct. >> despite his saying i can't wait to meet with him. >> hundreds of times. he didn't tell the truth in his written responses. >> right. in the first impeachment. actually the testimony said no, he didn't. that was -- it was not candid. with respect to the first impeachment he kept on saying, not under oath. it's not true. this is what happened. he didn't testify, and he wasn't why? because there are sanctions for testifying falsely. and so he wants to just continue this sort of smear campaign, but not do it in a way that he can be held to account. >> in 2016, he feared the impact politically of stormy daniels talking, which is why he pays $130,000 to keep her quiet.

in 20 -- what are we in? 2024, he fears the political damage of stormy daniels talking, and so he's right now before a judge getting permission to silence or smear her. it's the same story that got him indicted in the first place. >> and, you know, what you're hearing from the three of us who just heard her live, she's -- she is impressive. you know, to your example of where does it say, you know, didn't you once say you want to be instrumental in putting him in jail, she said, you show me where i said that. >> the other exchange -- >> she was right. by the way, she goes, when the clip pulls up, goes to susan necheles, where are the words instrumental and the words jail. she was like, like, no. >> let's talk about the dinner exchange that we witnessed today. i mean that went on and on. >> tell us. what happened? >> susan necheles was hammering her on the idea of -- >> oh -- >> dinner with donald trump and

what did you eat and she -- they didn't eat. and susan necheles went through transcript of interviews she came where stormy daniels had said we went out for dinner. and stormy daniels was like -- >> i was invoighted for dinner. >> and stormy is like show me where it says we ate food. there was no reference to it >> the whole thing, she walks in and doesn't have clothes on. she thinks they're going to dinner. >> sometimes where i'm from you say you're going to dinner doesn't mean you show up and eat. it's a time of day. but this was a protracted -- i felt like maybe three hours, i think it was 30, 40 -- >> it went on and be on. this is one i kept thinking, i wanted to pull susan necheles aside and say move on. like you're just digging a hole. >> i kept saying, i hope she's got something better than this, and then the other thing that struck me, you could speak to this, her story i didn't feel --

it's changed a little bit over time and new details have come out, but that happens with witnesses. >> yeah. so that's what -- >> they don't have the same story from beginning to end. >> also, they -- the cross was trying to say you didn't say the same thing in each interview, but she isn't editing the interviews. >> i saw the "in touch" interview comes up and says on the bottom of the interview edited. >> edited and that was a perfect -- >> that only happens to you. >> all right. we regrettably have to sneak in a quick break. we'll continue to monitor what's happening in real-time. vaughn will help us do that on the other side. still to come for us, there for emotional support or spread disinformation? today united states senator showed up for a visit we've been describing at the courthouse. he spoke publicly about the key players in the trial. those are off limits about the gag's limits. repayments, reimbursements, the

money at the heart of the criminal case was a major focus of this afternoon's testimony. what today's witnesses were able to tell the jurors about the payments to stormy daniels. another very big day in the first ever criminal trial of an american ex-president, our coverage continues right here on "deadline: white house" after a short break. don't go anywhere. where.

if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd like to be. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪

- after military service, you bring a lot back to civilian life. leadership skills. technical ability. and a drive to serve in new ways. syracuse university's d'aniello institute for veterans and military families has empowered more than 200,000 veterans to serve their communities and their careers. from professional certifications, to job training, to help navigating programs and services, we give veterans access to support from anywhere in the world. i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic.

(♪♪) ( ♪♪ ) i thought water would help with these dry spots. that's lawn disease. but scotts healthy plus will cure it! lawn disease? been going around. so like other people have it and it's not... pick up a bag of the new scotts turf builder healthy plus lawn food today. feed your lawn. feed it. there is some breaking news to tell you about out of the courtroom just now, judge merchan has denied the trump defense team's request to amend donald trump's gag order to allow donald trump to publicly outside of a court of law

address stormy daniels' testimony saying this, quote, i don't want to see him use a gag order as a sword instead of a shield. donald trump retains the constitutional right to testify in court under oath in his own defense, just as any other person would. vaughn hillyard, his felt like, i'm a nonlawyer saying this, a workaround. i don't want to testify in a court where i have to tell the truth. i want to kick the you know what out of stormy daniels in front of my political supporters. am i missing something? >> right. donald trump has the opportunity to testify and the suggestion from judge merchan here as well as the prosecution arguing against the change in the gag order was that the defendant's team can speak and make the case all they want inside of the courtroom that is the purpose of the trial, and that is the purpose of being able to cross examine someone like stormy daniels who donald trump would like to attack and undercut right now.

the fact that judge noted that the defendant, donald trump, has allies outside of the courtroom. florida senator rick scott who made a lot of attacks on the system here including one of the prosecutors on the d.a.'s team as well as the family member the daughter a of judge merchan who did that on behalf of donald trump. essentially the contention donald trump can handle the witnesses as he likes from inside of the courtroom. donald trump, if anything anybody has been following for nine years, has a penchant to attack people repeatedly. paul ryan calling him the weakest and most incompetent speaker of the house of all time. donald trump, usually can make the case one day that he will not attack, but the next day does. judge merchan said to todd blanche his attorney your client's track record speaks for itself. i can't take your word for it which led merchan to not change the gag order. >> what was amazing, vaughn hillyard, the sex with stormy daniels not on trial, not even

the spank or the power dynamic or any of the things that you could imagine. he calls her horse face when he attacks her on social media. the kinds of things he said about her in the past and sometimes trump rolls out a new trick, usually he does not, and paul ryan said he wouldn't vote for donald trump a couple news cycles ago, so that must have processed for him wherever in the brain thoughts process. i'm looking at sue because she wrote about where worms die. but vaughn, what i want to understand from you, is the parallels that you see, having covered the political moment, especially mike and karen pence's angst after the "access hollywood" tape comes out. what he did to keep stormy quiet in 2016 now what he wants to do to respond to stormy's story, where do you see those impulses on trump's part intersecting? >> i think it's one, the private

conversations versus the public conversations. you were just having the parallel drawn between the efforts to silence stormy daniels' story in 2016, and the effort to silence her or at least attack her today, right, with the discussion over the gag order. donald trump has a pension for attacking his opponents. and, you know, so much of what we see in this courtroom only folks like andrew weissmann and susan craig sitting inside of that courtroom every day, are going to be able to hear with their own ears and see with their own eyes. unless you're a member of the public coming into lower manhattan this trial is not on video, not on camera, being related by reporters and others bearing witness inside there. and donald trump is largely relying on the reality of that. so for him, to be able to come out and publicly on his social media account or from a campaign stage like he did in 2016, go on the attack against those who

have -- either critics or who question his moral character, stormy daniels, michael cohen, that is effectively a stage of his that he has control over. he does not have control on what is happening in the courtroom or over private conversations that are happening and what he does have control over is the microphone, his social media account and the campaign stage, and he clearly feels like he is being undermined and losing a political opportunity as todd blanche his own attorney just said, he should be a able to tell voters about the last day and a half and shove aside stormy daniels' story. the two realities are difficult and one of them from inside the courtroom is going to have to rely on the american electorate at large trusting the word of the jurors and those of us that do go inside the courtroom about what transpires from within. >> lockland, being on the inside or having an insider's vantage point on the frantic effort to

keep these stories away from the voters, i wonder what you make of the equally frantic effort to burst out of a gag order, to smear one of the story tellers? >> he didn't look to smear david pecker, did he? >> correct. >> didn't smear david pecker, the tiktok of how these catch and kills went down in forensic detail from dino the doorman through to karen mcdougal and stormy daniels. he didn't look to smear -- >> why? >> there's a few reasons that could be possible there. i think the testimony that stormy daniels has given the last few days is humiliating to him. he doesn't like getting shown up by women in particular. then david pecker, as he got off the stand, still referred to donald trump as his mentor and his friend. but he wasn't looking to break the gag order and to smear pecker, i find that interesting. >> hope hicks gives the smoking gun of the state of mind which we know from covering nine years of efforts to hold him accountable. the state of mind in 2018, he

says thank god that didn't get out before election day. he didn't think of a gag order to attack hope hicks. just stormy. >> so much that can be written about this, about the role of women and how you could support him in light of how he's treating them, the role of class where he is, you know, it's -- the goose gander problem, he's so classless in the way we're dealing with somebody where, you know, we're not talking about abraham lincoln, you know, and it's just -- or just modern day, george bush 1 or 2, there's nothing to do with sort of politics. i mean, people who just have a respect for process and the rule of law and the white house and, you know, just common decency is just so -- >> he's not even an elegant criminal. leave the presidents out, there

are mobsters that adhere to their gag orders and honor the judge and witnesses. >> i tell the story we prosecuted the acting boss of the family, running the family, committing murders, trying if he could to, you know, get to the jury, but every day he would be in court, he would say hello. he was pleasant. he respected the judge, the process, when the jury came back, first thing we heard from him, that was too soon. i'm going down. there's just a -- i was just struck at the difference whereas like this is beyond mob tactics. >> we want to read straight from your notebook, i have to sneak in a quick break. there's plenty going on inside the courtroom. we'll be back with all of it on the other side. don't go anywhere. 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?

t—mobile's 5g network connects a hundred thousand delta employees so they can make every customer feel like they've arrived before they've left the ground. this is how business goes further with t—mobile for business. my name's dan and i live here in san antonio, texas. i ran my own hvac business and now i'm retired. i'm not good being retired. i'm a pain in the neck. i like to be able to have a purpose. about three or four years ago, i wasn't feeling as if i was as sharp as i used to be. i saw the prevagen commercials.

after a short amount of time taking prevagen, i started noticing a difference-- that i'm remembering this, i'm remembering that. i stopped taking prevagen and i found myself slacking back so i jumped right back on it. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. when anyone in this house wears white,

it doesn't stay white for long. white? to art class? that's risky. art has no rules, mom. huh. white with coffee? a dangerous endeavor. white? to soccer? i'm not gonna slide tackle. he's gonna slide tackle.

but now with tide oxi white, we can clean our white clothes without using bleach. it even works on colors. i slide tackled. i see that. keep your whites white even without bleach with tide oxi white. we got this. we talked a lot about sex. let's talk about paper. what is a jury going to be asked to decide this case on? >> 34 counts. let's take one of them. you can multiply times 34. is there a false business record that donald trump knew was a false business record and was this false according to the d.a., is that it says it is for legal fees when he knew it was actually to reimburse michael cohen for the hush money payments. and that there is one of three intents when he was doing this

that makes it a felony, he intended, for instance, to do this as part of a scheme to cover up the campaign and election fraud, the david pecker catch and kill scheme. so we've spent tons of time in the beginning of the case about the catch and kill scheme and election motivation. just to be clear you can have dual motivation. you can care a little bit about melania and a little bit about campaign fraud, you're still guilty. you don't have to prove 100% campaign. and then on the hush money payment, reimbursement. >> the testimony that i've seen is about 97.3 campaign. i mean who has mentioned melania. >> just hope. >> and that's charitable because hope -- >> the paper. >> if it comes out then i would be worried about it. >> yeah. so that's sort of a different

thing. if it comes out yeah, that would be something you are worried about, but that's not why you're doing it. it can be 50-50 it's fine in terms of the state's case. did he know that he was at the time reimbursing the hush money payments, and it wasn't legal fees. one of the things that came out today was that donald trump has said into a courtroom in california when stormy daniels sued him, that he knew he had reimbursed michael cohen for hush money. i mean, so that's number one. he's admitted it and they put on the proof. two he signs the checks. three, allen weisselberg and michael cohen knew at the time. weisselberg in exhibit 35 takes down exactly what the scheme is. he wrote down the scheme. i mean it's like -- we're not

getting them because they're smart. he wrote down what they were doing. in order to believe this you would have to believe that allen weisselberg, somebody who has been in jail twice for the president, somebody who has -- the loyal chief financial officer of the trump organization, decided pain of being fired was going to unilaterally decide for no benefit to himself that he is going to not tell his boss, which he's required to do if he wants to spend more than $10,000, he's going to engage in a scheme where he pays michael cohen $130,000 and then another $130,000. on his own and then to pull that off to keep that from donald trump, the scheme required donald trump to sign checks over and over again. >> and some of it feels so much quieter an so much less dramatic than hope hicks and stormy daniels, but the testimony in

the documents, as andrew said, has note always over it. >> that was so powerful about some of that evidence, especially the handwritten notes that kind of did look like somebody was just doing their taxes really quickly. i don't know what -- they make themselves out to be this massive corporation, but they've got scribbled notes down but it all added up and fits into the scheme and kept these notes and you do have to -- like when you saw michael cohen over and over sending in those monthly invoices, for his legal retainer for legal services performed, and then you see the checks coming back from donald trump all signed, i mean, that was really powerful testimony. that is going to be what this comes down to, the believability of the falsification of the documents. >> the other piece that they spent a lot of time on is, trump is a witness in this trial. trump's words and all the books about he wrote about himself and if there is a through line

between -- i mean i don't want to call it -- whatever he held himself out as, a great businessman, he was the micro manager and a tight wad. that's how he described himself. >> earlier this week let them hang by their own words and done an incredible job of going back over books he has written and pulling out pass ams he says i looked at every check, i watched every dollar, allen weisselberg, i trusted he was incredibly loyal and i think, you know, we're probably not going to get him on the stand but we have him in his words over the years talking about how he watched every dollar, signed every check, looked at every bit of paper and i think that was crucial for the jury to hear. >> hearing that allen weisselberg was loyal was wonderful today in donald trump's words because he was carrying out the marching orders of the boss, right, that's the case that government is trying to make. just to hear all these pieces coming together. >> coming together. >> in between the big witnesses.

these are the witnesses we're hearing from lesser but have very -- >> the kind of things a juror could ask to see. let me bring into the conversation my friend and dplooeg the rnc chairman co-host of msnbc's "the weekend" michael steele. what's so apparent to me some of the witnesses that trump has not -- trump hasn't attacked the witnesses that are either nice to him or act like they're nice to him or whose lawyers are paid for by the trump org, even if they deliver devastating testimony that gets to the heart of the trial. as we're talking about it's the publisher, it's the catch and kill scheme, agreed to by david pecker and donald trump with michael cohen a mid-level staffer in that scheme. the people that make him mad, people that enrage him, are women who don't like him. and we had that today in stormy daniels. >> yeah. we did. i mean, it's interesting to see the people who still are held in

orbit by donald trump, to some extent or degree. either he has more on them, like a weisselberg or their loyalty is just blind and again weisselberg, or you have people who, you know, are good with the boss and i'll deliver some information, but not too much. i don't want to hurt him. trump kind of appreciates that. then you get into everybody else who was in the orbit and have now swung out of it. and those are the folks particularly if they're women that donald trump seems to focus the greatest amount of ire on. those women who are telling his story. and they're telling his story through their eyes. he can't shape it. he can't remake it. he can't, you know, make them explain it a certain way. and so you see this time and time again in stormy daniels' case but also in how he dealt with women as president.

particularly female reporters. so that's the consistent through line as i'm reading this trial, that sort of speaks to the character of the man and how he engages with women who seemingly and in most cases do, have more power than he does. >> you know, michael, there's a lot that's been made of this trial and because there are so many we get into this game of comparing these charges to the ones related to the january 6th insurrection and the ones related to the documents mar-a-lago. these are the only facts he's not running on. as you watch him to try to get out of anyone that threatens him politically seems like the most incriminating piece of evidence that he did the thing he's charged with doing. he paid money to silence stormy daniels ahead of 2016. he's trying to bust out of a gag order and attack a witness because he's afraid it will hurt

him in 2024. it seems that his conduct in trying to bust out of the gag order is perhaps the most incriminating piece of evidence prosecutors could put in front of -- he did it then, he's doing it again. >> yeah. nicolle, that is such an excellent point to make because it is such an obvious character flaw that you see in bullies, in weak little men who lose control of their environments and circumstances. they do want to lash out. and the rationale is if i make a big deal about this thing, if i punch hard and punch down, that will do two things. one, it will send the proper signal to the person i'm punching at. and two, for everybody else looking, they will see how strong i am and will focus that. they lose sight of the fact the very act of what they're doing makes the case against them.

it's not taking the eye off of the ball, it's actually putting the eye further onto the ball and explaining some details that maybe otherwise would have been missed. and so it's just the nature of the egocentric individual who wants to control every aspect of the things around them from the messaging to the money to the relationships, all of it. and you can't do it all at one time. that's just life. you cannot control it all at one time. and so you start beating back, you start, you know, violating gag orders because your whole orientation is to strike back. and in the striking back, you get yourself in more trouble, and you expose yourself to more trouble. >> exposed is how the trump team feels right now. vaughn hillyard, there is a ferocious legal battle taking place right now in court. trump's lawyers are arguing that

stormy daniels' testimony about the sex is so salacious that it taints the jurors' impression of donald trump. when the bragg team is arguing pretty sharply that the account is what he sought to silence, tell me how this argument is playing out right now. >> reporter: exactly. number one, the jury has been dismissed for the day. they're not watching and listening to this back and forth. but this was the re-upping of the motion for a mistrial here. and the judge merchan is hearing both sides make their case. todd sblafrn making the case that -- blanche is making the case that some of the details by stormy daniels during her line of questioning from the prosecution including, for instance, the height differentiation of the two and feeling of imbalance of power between her and donald trump, and the spanking of donald trump on the butt with the magazine, that those were details that were prej addition to donald

trump -- prejudicial to donald trump the defendant and have nothing to do with the record case. the prosecution is arguing in front of the judge that they have everythinging to do with this case. number one, they have to do with the credibility of stormy daniels, but also they are noting then even offering, the prosecution offering to put under seal a list of more graphic details that stormy daniels would have been able to provide in her testimony, but they chose not to extract or ask her about for the purpose of not tainting the defendant in the eyes of the jury. so essentially questioning, they're telling the judge and telling the defense team for donald trump, all right, if you really wanted us to have stormy daniels tell the whole story in even more graphic terms, she would have been able to do that. but we went just far enough in our line of questioning, with most questions being yes or no questions, just enough to make it clear that her story was credible and that she had details of what played out that

night of the one-night stand. >> i think, sue craig, we know how difficult sex is in a court of law, right? only two people who really know about the intimate act are stormy daniels and donald trump. but again, taking donald trump's word for it, that the intimate act was something he feared the public knowing about -- so desperately that he went about this extraordinary act of setting up a shell company because pecker says, quote, i will not be a bank. so stormy daniels, who her own lawyer says there was a, quote, crescendo of interest ahead of the election, donald trump believes these details are important enough and central enough to his ability to win the presidency that he goes through this extraordinary -- >> extraordinary -- >> there is not a shell company. there's not a reimbursement -- this arrangement isn't set up to do anything else other than keep these acts away from the voters in 2016. >> that's right. now how crucial are they to the case? i think what we're seeing right

now, i think is they're setting some tracks for an appeal, if i could just sort of -- i think they're going to say this went too far and they're trying to get it into the record now because this is going to go up on appeal if he's found guilty. but the -- they're arguing pretty fast and furious that a lot of these details just should not have come in, that it went too far. these are the exact details that he was trying to shield the public from, that he -- the whole catch-and-kill scheme was based on was to make sure the public didn't know about. this. >> didn't know these things. >> that's right. >> i have to ask you, i hope you're not offended, would the spanking have made it into "national enquirer" ? >> it would have been as will the details with the seal -- >> would the crime have made it into the "national enquirer"? >> it would have. every salacious detail would have been on the front cover of the "national enquirer" as we headed into the election off the backs of the "access hollywood" tape. that's why the story had to be killed. that's why it had to be purchased off the market. that is why the story has --

>> that's why it was entered into evidence. >> but is it -- my question is just because that is true, does it mean, is it necessary that the jury needs to hear all of this? i don't know. >> the state has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. the defense does not have to stipulate to anything. they can say you have the burden, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. they are entitled to show this salacious story and, in fact, the more salacious, the more motive there would be to have -- >> and if you're saying that the condom, the spanking, deals would have been in the "national enquirer," that's what trump understand -- that was his world. >> in every supermarket, everywhere days before the election. and off the back of the "access hollywood" tape. that's why it was so damaging. >> trump knows that's true. >> that's true. >> andrew has to stick around longer. we could get a ruling on this from the judge any moment. if we do we will bust out of a

break. we'll tell you about it regardless. you abo iutt regardless when i said we need to screen for colon cancer? -was that after i texted the age to screen was now 45? [both] because i said cologuard®! -hey there! -where did he come from? -yup, with me you can screen at home. just talk to your provider. [both] we'll screen with cologuard and do it my way. cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45+ at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for me, cologuard. oh no. running low? with chewy, always keep their bowl full. save 35% on your first autoship order. get the food they love. delivered again and again. (♪♪) [thud] (woman) ugh, of course it stops loading at the best part. (tony hale) i wasn't eavesdropping, yes i was. you need verizon. get their crazy powerful network out here, and get six months of disney bundle on them!

and it is all good. (vo) that's right, stream on the go, with six months of disney bundle on us. all your favorite content from hulu, disney plus and espn plus is all yours, and watch it all on the new galaxy s24+, also on us. only on verizon. right now you can get a free footlong at subway. just buy any footlong in the app and get one free. just scan the qr code and enter promo code flbogo it only works from the other side of the screen, buddy. you still got a land line in your house.

order now in the subway app.

hi again, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york. any moment now a decision from judge juan merchan on the argument coming in fast and furiously from the defense team in donald trump's criminal trial, they had asked for a mistrial to be declared over stormy daniels' testimony. an intense back and forth has been taking place between both sides after a day that saw the conclusion of dramatic testimony from the woman at the heart of all of this, stormy daniels. over seven hours of testimony describing her 2006 encounter with the ex-president and the hush-money payment she was paid to keep the story of their encounter silent. stormy daniels pushed back against contentious questioning from trump's lawyers, "new york times" calling her, quote, the

most intense witness they've experienced so far. and while the witness following her may not have been the most intense, she gets to the heart of the crime at the center of the trial. the keeping of business record. rebecca minocho, an employee of the trump organization's bookkeeping department, testified about mailing trump checks to sign while he was the president of the united states of america. this junior bookkeeper worked for allen weisselberg for eight years. she explained how she would send fedexs of blank checks for the then president to sign, and after he signed they would be mailed back to her. she describes how keith schiller and then john macatee were recipients of the check she sent and notably that they used their home addresses rather than the white house address. another witness on the stand this afternoon to take note of, madeleine westerhaut, trump's personal assistant. she was known as his gatekeeper

for a while. her desk was right outside the oval office while donald trump was president. she filled in details about how the trump administration worked. she affirmed what we heard from the bookkeeper. question from the prosecution -- did you ever see mr. trump sign checks in his office? westerhout, sometimes yes. question, did whether trump sign each check by hand? answer, to my knowledge, yes. as to why the back and forth of trump signing checks is so central, the repayments he made to michael cohen, which he signed in this manner, are at the center of the 34 felony charges against him. just a few moments ago judge merchan denied donald trump's second request for a mistrial. it's where we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. outside the courthouse for us, nbc news correspondents yasmin vossoughian. also acting assistant attorney general for national security at

the department of justice and msnbc legal analyst mary mccord is here. with us at the table, msnbc legal analyst and a former criminal division deputy chief at the southern district of new york, kristi greenberg is back. and former top official at the department of justice msnbc legal analyst andrew weissman is back with us. that was a live portion of trump talking, we're never sure if he's going to threaten, so we monitor it so you don't have to. anything newsworthy ewe'll tell you about it. yasmin, we'll start with you. >> reporter: the judge denying this motion for a mistrial, nicolle. he mentioned in his lead up to delivering that decision about how he went back to his chambers tuesday afternoon, after hearing some of stormy daniels' testimony, and reviewed the testimony because that was when we initially heard about this motion for a mistrial after returning from our lunch break. he talked about how he felt as

if some of the details in there should not have been included, questions asked for instance about whether the former president had wished a condom and wished that the witness had not answered those questions. however, he went on to talk about he brought up todd blanche's opening remarks. in these opening remarks, todd blanche denies the fact that a sexual encounter occurred between stormy daniels and donald trump. and so that is one of the reasons why he says it seems the people's attorney had to talk about the details of that evening in 2006 after they met at that celebrity golf tournament. because it was those details from stormy daniels and her account which directly contradicts the opening statement from todd blanche. it was necessary to pit the two of them against each other for the jury to decide do we believe stormy daniels' recount of what happened on that evening back in

2006, or do we believe todd blanche's account and/or donald trump's account of what happened back on that evening in 2006? hence the reason why this judge now has denied this motion for a mistrial. it was expected he was going to deny this motion for a mistrial, and he again, nicolle, chided todd blanche and the defense attorney saying there were many instances in which you could have objected throughout her testimony in which you did not. you and i talked about this yesterday. there was a moment in which judge juan merchan on tuesday said sustained to his own objection in a moment in which he felt as if the defense attorneys should have provided an objection. and so here today he has denied this motion. he has denied an amendment to a gag order, as well, in which the former president and his attorneys asked for the former president to be able to respond publicly to some of the testimony from stormy daniels, saying you cannot attack witnesses because it's not just

about stormy daniels, but it is also about intimidating possible future witnesses that may, in fact, take the stand. so now 5:00, court is in recess until tomorrow morning. >> does it change the calculation about whether trump testifies? >> reporter: i don't necessarily think so because i think what many people have been saying -- every time andrew comes out i pull him aside, andrew, what do you think? now you have him at your table. i think the likelihood of donald trump testifying is fairly low. although donald trump could very well take the stand and defend himself and deny the fact that he had a relationship, a sexual encounter, with stormy daniels. but the risk, right, outweighs what the positives are in his testimony. and so whether or not the former the takes the stand i think is really up to his defense attorneys and himself. but i don't necessarily think him weighing in publicly on stormy daniels' testimony is

going to be included in the calculation as to whether or not he takes the stand. >> i mean, i think that's right legally. i just wonder if we've passed the point where trump is -- is engaged in a legal undertaking. >> look, there is a possibility that he says, you know what, i'm -- throwing caution to the wind, and he does what he did in the second e. jean carroll case and says i'm a better lawyer than anyone. you would think after paying $80 million after that, he might think maybe you're not, and there would have been a better choice than yourself. he does have three lawyers who are going to put their bodies in front of that and say it is the worst possible thing. i think the reason he is -- i think -- i mean, it is if you are the state, you are licking your chops at this. it's better for them to go with a sort of you didn't prove your case. i have to say that is a hard

argument because what i was just thinking about at the end of today and our discussion in the last hour is when you close, as kristi knows, when you're the state, one of the things you say is what is the narrative that is consistent with all of this evidence? and we know the narrative from the state. can anyone sit here like yasmin, three of you, say what is the story that's consistent with the proof that we know? the hard proof and the softer proof from witnesses? there is no narrative that has been presented that explains it other than what the state has said. so you know, this -- if donald trump testifies, it's always possible. but you know, that is going to be -- there will be a guilty verdict at that point. >> i want to read some of what yasmin is talking about. kristi, to you. the judge says, "in going back to the opening statements, mr. blanche, in your opening statement you denied that there

was ever a sexual encounter between stormy daniels and your client. your denial puts the jury in the position of having to choose who they believe. donald trump, who claims there was no encounter, or stormy, who claims that there was. though the people don't have to prove the sexual encounter, they do have to show her credibility which immediately came under attack in your opening statements. the more specificity she can provide the more the jury can weigh whether they believe her account of the encounter. not only is he denying the mistrial, not giving trump lee its way to attack her, he's saying that the specificity, the small details are central to any witness' credibility. >> they really were here, and they also really explained why it is that the hush-money payment, why donald trump would have been motivated to make that hush-money payment in the first place or have michael cohen make it, right? this was so damning and the details are so embarrassing and lurid. you know, the details about melania and the -- that he said, you know, we don't sleep in the

same bedroom. the details about you remind me of my daughter, and he's, you know, trying to get her a spot on a reality tv show to sleep with her. they are just cringe-worthy. i think that was the reason that you would be motivated to make sure they didn't get out before the election. that said, with respect to this mistrial motion, there were some details i do think the state should not have elicited. there were certain details that did seem to suggest that this was getting close to the line of a sexual assault. the question about the height differential, not clear why that was relevant. the questions about him blocking the way and being bigger than her, sort of leaving a suggestion there that she didn't say it, that she wouldn't have been able to leave easily. there was a question about did you say no, and she said, you know, at no point did i say no. said why, and on direct her response was, well, i didn't say anything. which again left it out there, did she feel she couldn't? so consent is not an issue here.

sexual assault is not part of this case at all. and that is more rental additional and inflammatory -- prejudicial and inflammatory than the charges he's charged with. what i was looking for is is this going to get cleaned up on redirect by the state because some of this, i think, could be an issue on appeal later. and i actually think it got cleaned up on cross by donald trump's own lawyer. at one point she asks the question -- i'm not going to get in precisely right -- you know, what about his actions made you feel like you couldn't say no, something to that effect. and she responded, it wasn't his actions, it was my insecurities that led me to go through with it. and you know, that was just such a moment of -- and then she elaborated and said he never physically threatened me, never verbally talented me, didn't have a weapon, didn't drug me. she goes through this litany of, you know, of the circumstances of why she did what she did. it was very plain at that point she was not accusing him of any kind of assault, and she really was talking about being in a

situation that was extremely uncomfortable for her. and i thought it humanized her. i thought it was really important testimony for the -- it was a powerful moment for her. and most importantly to the judge's point, it was credible. it seemed very credible. like somebody in that situation coming out of a bathroom and seeing somebody in their boxers. like she was shocked and didn't really know how to behave. and so i really thought that the mistrial arguments that this is -- there has been confusion about this prejudice, i think they fell flat based on trump's defense, his arguments today. >> mary mccord, you're usually here for deeply disturbing stories about national security or extremism. today you're here about donald trump's election interference hush-money payments to an adult film actress. i wonder what you make of all these worlds intersecting and what we know about donald trump that maybe we didn't know before. that someone who ran in 2016, as

someone who believed he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his base wouldn't care, i think we saw that bare out as closer to truths than fiction. donald trump that that these stories, these details told by stormy daniels in the court over tuesday afternoon and thursday morning would prevent him from winning the election in 2016. >> that's right, and i think that's also the reason why his attorneys today asked for the gag order to be modified because he wants to be able to respond to this. he wants to be able to push back, but he doesn't -- maybe because of his lawyer's advice is thinking if i can't do that in court, i need to do it outside of course. i need to stick up for myself, i need to deny this, i need to say that she's a liar, i need criticize her. because again, he's playing to this bigger audience. he is a candidate right now. and that would be such an end run around the gag order. i mean, if you can't -- if you

need to respond to what a witness testifies to in court, you need to respond to that in court. now it could be different if stormy daniels ends up posting on social media about this or otherwise speaking out in ways that the judge would then say, okay, now, stormy, you're using this as a sword and it's not fair for mr. trump not to be able to respond to political attacks outside the courtroom. but right now in him denying the gag order, i think he was recognizing first, as he said, you know, this gag order is necessary to preserve the integrity of the trial and to -- to make sure other witnesses won't fear that you will attack them outside of the courtroom and do what you would -- the only way you're allowed to do that is if you take the stand. and as others have talked about, highly unlikely he'll take the stand, although i think he'll want to. to your question, i think this just shows you in many ways who he is, right?

he can't stand not to win. he can't stand not to get the last word. and that's why it's so impossible for him to keep his mouth shut when he walks outside the courtroom. >> i mean, i think it's also, yasmin, a fascinating microcosm of trump's political playbook. i mean, what trump did in '16 was take the "access hollywood" tape, turned to steve bannon after going upstairs and saying whatever he said to melania trump, and then by the time the debate with hillary clinton came around, at least in his head, throwing more mud than was thrown at him by his own words being revealed to the public. this is a courtroom. this is a place where a judge who really has no dog in the fight except maintaining the integrity of the legal process makes all the decisions, not donald trump. steve bannon is probably of no use to him inside those four walls. i'm sure he's of great use to him as soon as he leaves. it does illustrate why trump has

fought so desperately, why he has clawed and scraped and scrapped and tried to manipulate everything he's tried to manipulate over the last nine years to avoid legal accountability, to avoid a legal consequence, to desperately replace sessions with someone more loyal, to desperately fire robert mueller, to rig and man ikely assault joe biden as being responsible for any and all of these investigations into his own conduct. >> reporter: to control the outcome. this is the one instance in which he cannot control this outcome. andrew talked about how donald trump took the stand in the e. jean carroll defamation case. remember how long he office that stand? it was about 90 seconds. he office that stand for about 90 seconds. we all rushed to cameras, donald trump is taking the stand, nbc went to specials. by the time we got up, he was off. that was his moment in the sun to feel as if he was defending

himself against e. jean carroll and the defamation case, and it all took but 90 seconds. don't forget, whatever happens in this trial, nicolle, as you just talked about, the way in which donald trump tries to defend himself and if he likely does not take this stand in the weeks and the days after this, as he's continuing to run for president as a republican -- presumptive republican nominee for president, he will take the stand on every stage in this country. he will take the stage on social media. he will make sure his surrogates are taking the stand defending his quote/unquote legacy and refuting the accounts made by stormy daniels and eventually michael cohen, as well. one thing i want to mention, nicolle, when it came to the cross-examination today of stormy daniels that was somewhat disturbing to me was the way in which susan necklace framed stormy daniels as an adult film star who should have expected to be in a situation like the one that she found herself in,

walking out of a bathroom, seeing donald trump in his boxers and his t-shirt on the bed. that she's done, acted in over 150 adult films, directed over 150 adult films, as well, she should have expected it. and i know we're not litigating possible sexual assault and that's been made clear, hence one of the reasons they brought up the idea of a mistrial because they say that's prejudicial, some of the statements made by stormy daniels. but it's disturbing to me as a woman thinking about the way that was framed and how far we felt like we have come. and yet here we are kind of saying, well, you had a short skirt on, did you not deserve it? did you drink to much? did you not deserve it? it's something as we think about this testimony today to think about and look at as to how they framed stormy daniels and how in a way, speaking to what you were talking about, humanized her even more so during that cross. >> well, i have been fascinated

in the contrast between how hope hicks, who delivered testimony that was lights out incriminating about donald trump's state of mind about the stormy daniels story staying silent until 2018. donald trump's treatment of her and the press coverage of her was largely sympathetic. she was so upset by that testimony. she cried. and she is an elegant former ralph lauren model. that's how she was treated. she was crossed very delicately. there is a class issue, there is a gender issue, and there is a threat to donald trump issue. and we should just call it out for what it is. susan necklace sought to shame stormy daniels not just to her face but in front of the jurors, to say this porn star slut isn't telling the truth. to susan necklace, it isn't really about the sex, right, it's about whether or not she's telling the truth. if she's telling the truth, then donald trump absolutely paid $130,000 and probably would have paid a hell of a lot more to keep her quiet ahead of the 2016 election.

>> reporter: yeah. poke holes. that's all they wanted to do in that cross-examination, poke holes in stormy daniels' story, poke holes in their credibility. you think that was tough to listen to, just wait until we see michael cohen on the stand. that's been their approach this entire time. the question is if it's actually working, and i would estimate considering the cross-examination that we've seen so far, she was humanized more during that cross than she was during the direct which i don't think is necessarily usually the case in hay cross-examination in these types of trials. and they tried to chip away at stormy daniels' credibility so even one juror would say i don't necessarily believe her, you consider her past, you think of where she came from, what her motivation was. she was money hungry. she was after it. she had an axe to grind with donald trump. and yet when she was put in that victim seat and seemed to be more of a whistleblower, a woman just really defending herself about a man who used to be the most powerful man in the free world, right, that could really

not be good for the defense. >> yeah. again, we'll see. none of us have any clue how the defense is experiencing any of this. no one's going anywhere. there's so much more to get to with our panel. as stormy daniels wrapped up her testimony with some of the lesser known witnesses today who helped bolster the prosecution's case, their narrative, as andrew reminds us. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. continues after a quick break.

[ serene music playing ] welcome to the wayborhood. the wayfair vibe at our place is western. my thing, darling? shine. gardening. some of us go for the dramatic. how didn't i know wayfair had vanities in tile? [ gasps ] this. wow! do you have any ottomans without legs. sure. you'll flip for the poof cart. in the wayborhood, there's a place for all of us. ♪ wayfair. every style. every home. ♪

right now you can get a free footlong at subway. just buy any footlong in the app and get one free. just scan the qr code and enter promo code flbogo it only works from the other side of the screen, buddy. you still got a land line in your house. order now in the subway app. her uncle's unhappy. you still got a land line in your house. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for.

in february of 2017, one month into his presidency and

visiting president trump in the oval office for the first time, and it's truly awe inspiring. he's showing me all around and pointing to different paintings and says to me something to the effect of, don't worry, michael, your january and february reimbursement checks are coming. they were fedex'd from new york, and it takes a while for that to get through the white house system. as he promised, i received the first check for the reimbursement of $70,000 not long thereafter. >> we're all back. that reimbursement scheme is stipulated in a lawsuit in california, andrew reminded us. it feels beyond established that the money -- i think -- do we have that? rudy talked about on it as "hannity." how much of this is reminding a jury of how much has already

asserted and stipulated and narrowing the issues up for debate? >> there was one piece of evidence that's coming already, a conflict of interest form that donald trump signed in may of 2018 that says that michael cohen had expenses in 2016 and those expenses ranged from i think it was $100,000 to $250,000, which is consistent with these payments, the payments to stormy daniels, and that donald trump reimbursed michael cohen for those expenses. so again, as you're going forward and looking at these checks that say they're for a retainer for 2017 expenses, where's what you already said that you reimbursed him for? where are those checks? where is that money? it doesn't exist because these are those checks. so i thought they have made that point both with the documents and then with witness testimony talking about the fact that conversations were had about reimbursement. i think that's going to be very hard for them to get away from. and yet that's how they opened. they opened on the fact that these were not reimbursements, that these were payments for actual legal services in 2017.

it's hard to understand what the defense strategy is because as you said the documents and the testimony has been so tight on that point. >> we were talking in the break about the conversation yasmin and i were having about the strategy of eliciting shame from a witness for her chose not profession -- chosen profession, for putting -- in stormy daniels' words, putting herself in the position she found she was in in '06 when she was alone with donald trump in a hotel room. do those battering cross examinations work? >> i don't think so, particularly not with a manhattan jury where you have five women on the jury. it felt at times not only was the questioning really harsh and combative and aggressive, but the tone was mocking. it did, as you said earlier, it -- there was a class issue there it seemed. i mean, you could see her

arguing to this jury she's a porn star, can you really believe that she's in a hotel room with this man and he comes out in his boxers and she's clutching her pearls? like you know, there was that sort of mocking tone to everything she was saying. and i don't think this -- i don't think any manhattan jury, at least are going to be plenty of people on the jury that will find that offenoffensive. they're hoping for the one i guess that won't. that's a real fwam bell. i thought -- gamble. i thought if anything the defense came off as very unlikable, very combative. and stormy daniels kept her cool today. i actually thought she performed better on cross-examination than she did on direct examination. she answered the questions, she was careful, she was listening, she was thoughtful. so i don't think it will work. but i think susan necklace was brought in to do this. she has done these kinds of cross examinations in the past in other cases of women in the sex business which, again, that's a little different than this. you know, here stormy daniels is very clear she was a porn star,

not a sex worker. susan necklace has done this before, it hasn't worked in other cases -- recent cases. and i don't think it's going to be successful here. >> mary mccord, the verbal sort of -- whatever the transcript, i wasn't -- it read like a verbal assault. it was did you say you bought a ranch, i didn't say i bought it, i said i paid for it, i paid rent for it. susan necklace went after her credibility in saying she had gone to his room for dinner. she obviously thought they were going to leave the room. she told donald trump to, quote, get dressed. was it too much, or is it -- is it just burn it all down if you're a defense lawyer on cross? >> this is where it's hard for i think us to assess when we're looking at the black and white transcript because these -- there's a cadence to cross-examination, there's how did the witness actually deliver responses, were there hesitations or pauses, was there immediate responses? you know, when i'm in the courtroom, i'm looking to see

how is the jury reacting. when i was sitting at the prosecutor's table and the defense counsel was cross examining one of my witnesses. we don't get any of that from the cold record. i think it's a little hard to tell whether even to kristy's point whether the jury was offput or not. we don't see the body language and nuances, it's hard to glean from the cold record. i do think susan necklace perhaps, at least based on a cold record, scored some paints in a different area. i agree with kristy that the belittling of her and basically saying, you know, you're a porn star so why should you be believed, i think that that probably didn't go over that well with the jury. but i found myself looking at the transcript a little bit confused about stormy's motivation. i thought susan necklace hit some important points on this. was it to make money because at times she said yes, she wanted to get paid, she wanted to sell her story, when her agent first

came to her about selling the story she went along with that. motivated at least in part by money. yet she also said she didn't want the story to come out because she wanted for her own safety especially after the encounter in the parking lot in 2011 i believe it was, she felt threatened, she felt that her safety was at issue. so she was -- at issue, as well as the safety of her family and her young daughter. so she didn't want the story to come out. and i think that's something we're going to see the defense really hammer when we get to closings is this idea of which was it, you can't -- want to make money but also not want the story to come out -- want to make money on the story and also not want the story to come out. now she portrayed it, stormy daniels, as, you know, it was a better option for me to make money and have the story get squashed. but i think susan, you know, did -- it was important -- that's an area where it was important for the cross-examination to kind of really hit at that, if she

perceived that there was some inconsistencies. if i were doing the cross-examination, i would have laid up on some of the things that kristy rightfully criticized her for. and there's one other point i would make which is that we've spent a lot of time rightfully today talking about sort of the stacking up of credibility between stormy daniels and donald trump who probably won't testify as to whether the sex act did happen. for purpose -- and i understand why the prosecution felt it needed to prove it up and make her look credible on the fact that they had sex. for purposes of the false business records, it would not even have to be a true story. i mean, if he -- if she was making it up and he conspired with michael cohen to pay her off, to not go public with the story even if made up, you can't then put on your tax records or put on your business records that this is for legal expenses, right. they would still be fraudulent.

now, you know, right now obviously that's not the prosecution's strategy, but ultimately as people keep saying this is about fraudulent business records. and whether they did or didn't have sex is not absolutely critical to whether those -- not even critical at all, it's not proof of whether they were false or not. it goes to the motivation, like you were talking about in the last segment. why would it pay $130,000? if he thought that he could deny this credibly because it wasn't true, he probably wouldn't have paid $130,000. >> what's amazing to me, mary, is that what he wanted to keep secret, what we know about what he was worried about politically is never a dramatic flip-flop on his position on a woman's right to choose. he once described himself as so pro-choice, he's now for criminalizing doctors who perform abortions -- it's just an interesting window into what he thought would be politically deadly.

he thought, trump thought after "access hollywood" came out that the stormy daniels story would be a political nail in the coffin for him. and listening to her tell the story in all of its lurid details as a political person, i'm like, ah, aha, his political instincts are those of someone who can become president somehow. but you're right in terms of the crime that's under the microscope legally, the truth or the voracity of the story he sought to suppress is central. thank you so much for being part of our coverage today. grateful to both of you. we all stick around. there's much more from day 14 of the first-ever criminal trial of an american ex-president. quick break for us. we'll be right back. we'lbel ri. care of fixing your windshield.e but did you know we can take care of your insurance claim? that means less stress for you. >> woman: thanks. >> tech: my pleasure. have a good one. >> woman: you too. >> tech: schedule today at safelite.com. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ [ doorbell rings ] you must be isaac. come on in. [ sighs ] here's my pride and joy.

[ romantic music plays ] ♪♪ beautiful stair renovation, sir. and they're covered with your home and auto bundle with progressive, so you get round-the-clock protection. so, is gabby coming down? oh, she said she'll meet you at the prom. today, at america's beverage companies,... ...our bottles might still look the same... ...but they can be remade in a whole new way. thanks to you... we're getting bottles back... and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic. new bottles - made using no new plastic. you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. and when we get more of them back... ...we can use less new plastic. see how our bottles are made to be remade.

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

joining our coverage, co-founder and executive director at protect democracy ian bassin is back with us. joining us at the table, host of "the fast politics" podcast and special correspondent for "vanity fair" our friend molly jung fast is back with us. kristy and mary are still here. donald trump wanted to bust out of a gag order to smear a witness in the trial. and most sort of good betting money is on the fact that he probably won't testify in his own defense. it feels extra judicial, right? he wants to muddy her up, he wants to speak directly to his admirers of his strongman persona. but it also suggests that he feels vulnerable, feels exposed. talk about that through the lens

of the world's strongmen, why this would bother him so much. >> well, i think one thing is he likes to be in control. and this was something that was referenced in the earlier segment. obviously when you're a defendant in a courtroom that's the one thing you are not. you have an enormous amount of due process protections, but you are not in control of those surroundings. i think he rightly fears to some extent that that exposes him as weak. and "the new york times" reported not only that but he was dozing off during the trial. he's very concerned about his brand. long before he was a politician, he was all associated with the word trump and its brand. i think he's concerned that this is a setting in which he's not really able to bolster his brand. i think from a political instincts matter he's attuned to the risks that that poses to him. >> i wonder what you think, to ian, the way that judge merchan is trying to in the most extraordinary political moment maintain the integrity of the rule of law inside the four

walls of his courthouse. >> trump has proven again and again that he borrows a lot of his playbook from his old mentor roy cone, don't argue the facts, don't argue the law, bully the system. and what judge merchan is trying to do is protect the system because obviously trump has -- trump understands that when he goes after witnesses or he goes after court personnel or simply names them to his followers, they face a barrage of threats, quite menacing, violent threats. this is by design. it's designed to intimidate. merchan knows he's dealing with someone who borrows a bit out of a mafia playbook. there was something that happened early in the trial that i kind of laughed off a little bit, but it actually came up again today. so during the first round of testimony when david pecker of testifying, he talked about a scene when he was walking along the coloinated, the famous colonade and trump asked how is karen, in reference to karen

mcdougal, one of the women alleged that he had slept with and paid off, had some sort of affair with and paid off. and pecker said, he said, oh, karen's fine. karen's not going to be a problem here. and immediately i thought of the scene in "the godfather" when sonny asks about the driver who had been with his father, don corleone when he was shot, paulie, and the hit man said, oh, paulie? won't be hearing from him no more. there's a striking comparison. but i kind of sort of brushed it off. then today one of the witnesses was reading from one of trump's books and read a section of it in which the -- had written in the book that when someone screws you, screw them back in spades. and said getting even is not always a personal thing, it's just part of doing business. of course that's exactly what michael corleone said to sonny. it's not personal, it's business. that was something that wasn't started in the "godfather," it came from an accountant in the mob in the 1930s who used to say

that. the comparisons here are getting a little bit too close for comfort in the way that the trump world operates. i think we're going to continue to see those parallels play out, and i think that's what judge merchan is worried about frankly. >> andrew, to ian's point, this is what triggers trump. i mean, it's not that hope and pecker didn't destroy him with their testimony, they did in terms of further establishing that -- both the motive and the evidence of his criminality. they were in his -- nice to him. they walked after pecker and was nice to me. stormy has no eyewitness account of him falsifying or writing any checks at all, but she in his view was mean to him. it's all about, you know, to ian's point, who is -- as comey said after he met him in new york at trump tower, you're in the family or you're outside of it. >> so it's one of the things that's wrong to do is to try and

pose a rational grid on -- >> totally -- >> -- what's going on because the rational grid is that you have to destroy david pecker if you're on the cross-examination side of this. because he has direct evidence about something that is key and central to the scheme. hope hicks, i thought that was beyond a body blow. it was so strong. and from a witness you would have such a hard time crossing, but you needed to. you had to figure out a strategy for how you were going argue to the jury that you cannot trust that piece of evidence. this was one where it doesn't really matter. >> correct. doesn't matter if the sex happened or not, doesn't matter if she likes him or not, doesn't matter -- none of it matters. >> it it could have been a shorter, cleaner thing, but that's because this is operating both within a psyche that is disturbed to say the least, and it is operating in a political plane and not at a criminal

plane. just to ian's point about the mob, there was an interesting tidbits -- and these are the things that jurors like -- stormy daniels today said when this was going on in donald trump's suite, the bodyguard outside was mr. schilling, keith schilling. and he was there, and he's a big guy. and it would have been hard to leave. but -- i could have left, but he was there, and he knew that i had arrived. he knew when i left. he was there. he is like a unit with him. he's always there. whenever i was there, he was there. next witness -- so when we're sending checks which, by the way, were fedex'd which michael cohen happens to know, little -- another tidbit, he happens to know that there are two-month payments and fedex'd, exactly what's happening, again, this happens to be right, and who did the checks get sent to? do they get sent to the white house? no. they get sent to mr. schilling,

to his personal address. >> his home. >> and you just got the sense of, you know, this is his body man. >> it is clear that it is not good for trump legally when his political and personal quirks, if you will, drive what happens in the courtroom. it's also clear that that is factoring into what's happening in the courtroom. >> this is a thing you and i have actually talked a lot about. candidate trump versus defendant trump. and you see it today with his cross-examination. what i think is really important is what you were talking about with stormy daniels before. and you've been talking about this a bunch, that there is a misogyny here that should not be understated. that her -- like it's almost as if trump and the lawyers who he is directing to a certain extent and we've seen that, are mad at her for trying to kind of take back her power. i've written about this a lot.

this is a person who has passed numerous anti-woman legislation. he is the person who put the three justices on the court with the -- because they were going to overturn roe. and here he is, you know, he is -- you can tell there's a sense which she's not allowed to have her story. she's not allowed to tell her story. >> correct. i think it's -- it's the first -- i think there's a disparity, too, between whether or not you read her on the page and the judgments that you have if you've heard her or seen her. and you know, on the page, she came across as very sympathetic. she told her story. her mother disappeared, her telling at 17, she studied vet anywhere medicine. she started modeling nude to make money and then started dancing and thought it will be tap or ballet dancing, not nude dancing. but all of the slurs, you're a sex worker, i'm not, and explaining what it was. they were all -- i don't know if microaggressions were the right

word, aggressive attacks on her character. you're at a point legally, character isn't at issue. >> i think what you brought up before about hope hicks, that testimony was ten times for damaging. but hope hicks is fancy and grew up in greenwich and was a model. there is a class components here which we never talk about. but you really do see this is a woman who had to make money, who had to support her daughter. and i think that is also in play. >> and again, whatever anyone thinks of stormy daniels, trump pursued stormy daniels, trump told stormy daniels that he, quote, reminded him of his daughter ivanka who was also beautiful. even michael cohen -- trump brought them into all of our lives. how do you make that point? >> i mean, this is the -- some of the tragedy of america in terms of -- this is -- >> pretty much it. >> we're talking about a former president of the united states and a leading candidate, and you know, look, i am old enough to

regardless of whether it was a democrat or republican revere the presidency and the person who holds that office. and it is impossible to have that view with this person. >> and i blame aaron sorkin for all of it. andrew, thank you. you're here double duty. i know we don't ever make clear our intentions with your time. thank you very much for staying. when we had in back, the disgraced ex-president is under a gag order. what about his supporters and enablers who are showing up at the courthouse? today the first sitting member of congress of there, was more than willing to spread negative information, disinformation, about the case. we'll tell you about it next. tet it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

wooooo! (woman) ugh, of course it stops loading at the best part. (tony hale) you need verizon. get their crazy powerful network out here, and get six months of disney bundle on them! (vo) stream with six months of disney bundle on us. and watch it all on the new samsung galaxy s24+, also on us. only on verizon. right now you can get a free footlong at subway. just buy any footlong in the app and get one free. just scan the qr code and enter promo code flbogo it only works from the other side of the screen, buddy. you still got a land line in your house. order now in the subway app. (woman) ugh, of course it stops loading at the best part. you still got a land line in your house. (tony hale) you need verizon. get their crazy powerful network out here, and get six months of disney bundle on them! (vo) stream with six months of disney bundle on us. and watch it all on the new samsung galaxy s24+, also on us. only on verizon. did you know you can get 40% off a single pair of glasses at america's best?

these savings won't last forever. unlike your eternal elation. ok, settle down. shop online or book an exam at americasbest.com.

(tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

we don't know what he did for this to be the case, but today the senator, rick scott's turn to carry the ex-president's dirty laundry around in front of the cameras. and what he said was particularly disturbing. he went after the very people -- people like judge juan merchan's daughter, who trump is not allowed to legally attack because of his gag order. joining us now, cornell belcher. cornell, your thoughts? >> you know, it's a new low. we just keep hitting new lows. and it really is quite frankly disturbing that we have these republican after republican rolling out, i guess,

auditioning to be his vp. and the audition isn't whether or not they are good, qualified public servants, that they're going to do the work of the people and ready to step in. but the job seems to be about whether or not you can carry donald trump's baggage and defend him, right? and it's not at all about the american people. you know, i see a lot of disturbing things in politics, nicolle, but this -- this is really, really disturbing to see a united states in our union, you know, standing in front of cameras, debasing way. i am taken aback in a time where i'm taken aback almost weekly. but this has nothing to do with the american people and certainly nothing to do with the people of florida but everything to do with donald trump and all these politicians seem to now be in service of donald trump, not the people, the constituents, who put them in office. >> cornell, aaron sorkin version

of this would be that he's up there saying, you know, nobody puts ted cruz and marco rubio in a corner. we learned from this trial that you used your unholy relationship with david pecker to smear them in the stories you knew were false. the real world, as you said, it's darker, it's sicker. and i think tim scott is evidence of the rot. we're too timid to call it out. they're all, for undermining and destroying the rule of law in america. >> yeah. and look, to a certain extent, are they giving trump supporters, right, an avenue for the cognitive dissonance? it is trump's voters are supposed to be law and order people. if they paint this and muddy the waters up and making this all about politics and they give them room to support someone that the back of their mind they, kind of, know has done a lot of wrong doings, again, it's a new low.

and i thought some of our senators were better than that, and they're not. >> ian bassen? >> you know, i read something the other day that i really thought was insightful about the trial we're witnessing. and benjamin -- has been running a diary, and he said, you know, in some ways we all expected and kind of wanted a high-minded trial about the office of the presidency. we might have wanted to see a trial of whether or not donald trump is guilty of trying to subvert the election or of abusing the powers of the presidency by absconding classified documents, a question of abuse of power at the highest office, a question at the heart of our constitutional order. but in fact what we're getting, in a way, is not any of that. but we're getting the trial the trump era deserves, which is a trial about hush money payments to hide extramarital sex with a porn star. we're getting a trial about

sleazy tabloid catch and kill stories. we're getting a trial about essentially the swamp, how the swamp operates, and just how comfortable donald trump is treading within, sort of, the deep bogs of the swamp. and in some ways, compared to all the trials we could have, isn't that the most fitting trial that we could get for this era? because it reflects, as cornell was saying, the debasement of this era under trump as president and ex-president. >> so smart. that's such a smart point. cornell, ian, christy, and molly, thank you so much for spending time with us. i'm sorry we ran out of time. another break for us. we'll be right back. of time another break for us we'll be right back. and unforgettable scenery with viking. unpack once, and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life, and cultural treasures. because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there.

viking. exploring the world in comfort. >> 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. ♪ with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley

♪♪ imagine a future where plastic is not wasted... but instead remade over and over... into the things that keep our food fresher, our families safer, and our planet cleaner. to help us get there, america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars to create innovative products and new recycling technologies for sustainable change. because when you push for smarter solutions, big things can happen.

her uncle's unhappy. because when you push for smarter solutions, i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. these are difficult stories. we're so grateful to you for letting us into your homes to talk about them. we're really grateful. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. hi, ari. >> hi nicolle. thanks so much. we're beginning with