ever, happens. >> he's being asked right now about negotiations directly with michael cohen. this is going to take it from the ami deal to direct negotiations with michael cohen, where michael cohen made the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels under a code name that they used, stormy daniels and keith davidson. and that eventually they're going to ultimately try to get that donald trump paid michael cohen back and knew what he was doing. donald trump is walking out right now. the court is in a short recess. eric trump is there for the first time. we have been talking about how the family wasn't there. i have ten seconds left, but tell me what does it mean to have eric there? >> i think it is important for the people who are really paying attention. he did not have any of his family members there before and so the fact that now someone has finally showed up on his behalf is probably a good thing, but the question is are you going to stay and are you going to continue to be there? >> you say finally, only been a week. thank you very much. chuck rosenberg, catherine christian, love the polka dots

today, my friend. court is in recess. that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." i'll see you back here for katy tur reports. "chris jansing reports" starts right now. good day. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. a price to be paid in triplicate. today, the judge tells donald trump you're in contempt, slaps him with a $9,000 fine and threatens jail. and that's even before witness and documents are offered as proof of the payments at the heart of the felony charges against trump. plus, with big names like michael cohen and stormy daniels still expected to take the stand, where exactly are we in the story that prosecutors are weaving and which witnesses are key to advancing it? and an attorney who argued cases in that same courthouse will explain. and as trump's legal issues grow, will the political peril

expand with it? trump and his allies now face trial in a majority of november's battleground states as he continues the balancing act of finding time for both trial and trail. we begin with the hush money trial. from the judge, from witnesses, and potentially from himself depending on how he responds to the judge, already today the jury got to see and hear some very important records, emails, video recordings, bank statements, things that maybe to the normal eye may not seem significant, but they're the backbone of the case that prosecutors were building. and so far today we heard from three different witnesses whose purpose was to authenticate records including one that is key to showing just how fast and furious michael cohen moved to get the hush money. the trial just broke for lunch with keith davidson on the stand. he worked extensively with cohen and is the former attorney for both stormy daniels and karen mcdougal.

he negotiated the selling of their stories. and nbc's vaughn hillyard is reporting from outside the courthouse. with us, peter baker, msnbc political analyst, joyce vance, former u.s. attorney, professor at the university of alabama school of law, and msnbc legal analyst, jeremy fallon, former assistant district attorney in the trial division of the manhattan d.a.'s office and a criminal defense attorney. all right, vaughn, explain what we learned so far from davidson on the stand. >> reporter: keith davidson, a crucial witness who frankly we did not know what he was prepared to publicly testify to. he is somebody that has not been public over the last eight years, somebody who has not given interviews to detail his story. he was working in the form of sort of agent attorney figure for karen mcdougal and stormy daniels in 2016, negotiating the sales of their stories to the "national enquirer," ami and michael cohen.

and is at the heart of this, in what the actual scheme looked like when it came to the actual execution. he testified, beginning in june of 2016, when he says he went to dillon howard, who is the editor in chief of the "national enquirer" with, quote, i have a blockbuster trump story. he texted the editor in chief of the "national enquirer." it was one month later that this story, karen mcdougal's story in which she alleged a ten-month affair was being negotiated between "national enquirer" or abc and that's when the editor in chief text messaged one month later in july of 2016 davidson to say, quote, we're going to lay it on thick for her to which davidson responded to the "national enquirer" editor, good, throw in an ambassadorship for me, i'm thinking of the isle of man, to which howard responded, lol. this hits at the heart of the

acknowledgement that perhaps donald trump was behind this effort to purchase the alleged story of the sexual relations between karen mcdougal and donald trump. the prosecution directly asked him, quote, the following, is it safe to say if you close this deal, it would somehow benefit donald trump? to which davidson, again, the attorney representing stormy daniels and karen mcdougal responded, yes, this is beginning to fill out some of these pieces about the actual negotiations and the extent to which they had an understanding that this was being directed by not only michael cohen, but donald trump. again, we are just at july of 2016 and karen mcdougal sale of the story here, so we still got august, september, october, and november to go for keith davidson to testify on the exact account from his experience from 2016 ahead of the election here when they come back after the lunch break, chris. >> he's been on

said so far lay the groundwork for where they're going? >> it is very, very efficient and effective because why are we here? what is this about? now you have somebody who says i was part of the negotiation, separating it from michael cohen because, again, the prosecution does not want to solely rest on his shoulders, now we have somebody on the inside, explaining the purpose of this, and how it all happened and how it was followed through. it is a very valuable witness. >> i want to read something that was said, one of the last things that was said in exchange between steinglass and davidson, the witness. he asks, was ami attractive because she would not actually have to tell her story, meaning karen mcdougal? is that why she wanted to go to ami, she wouldn't have to tell her story. this is what davidson says, that was one of her stated goals. and that would be in alignment with one of her very important stated goals. he says it twice. are they in that adding to what you just talked about, or are

they setting her up as someone who really didn't want to hurt trump, essentially shoring up her credibility before she even takes the stand, assuming she does. >> it is actually explaining and saying i don't want to go to the other station, the other network, the other resource because i don't want to have to tell my story. i want to keep it private, for myself. this was for me. he throws in that second piece saying, you know, there is two stated goals here. what is the other stated goal. the other stated goal is to get paid and shut your mouth. >> all right, joyce, the prosecution called also the head of cspan archives to the stand for a total of 15 minutes. very brief. but they used his testimony to introduce video of some comments that former president trump made. i want to play a portion of what they played. >> it is a phony deal. i have no idea who these women are. have no idea. i have no idea. and i think you all know i have

no idea because you understand me for a lot of years. okay. when you looked at that horrible woman last night, you said, i don't think so. i don't think so. whoever she is, wherever she comes from, the stories are total fiction. they're 100% made up. they never happened. they never would happen. all horrible lies. all fabrications. and we can't let them change the most important election in our lifetime. michael cohen is a very talented lawyer. >> so there is a lot there. i'm going to start with the fun part of it, which is, yes, the jury already knows that there are an awful lot of people in donald trump's close circle who knew exactly who those women are, including rhona graff, perhaps one of the top people in

his inner circle, his right-hand woman. but, what we didn't hear there was sort of the details of why they played that. help us understand why that's important, what you think the jury takeaway will be. >> right. prosecutors don't have the luxury of explaining to the jury why they're presenting certain evidence. they simply have to put the evidence in. and it is worth noting here, chris, that the reason that this gentleman had to fly in from indiana to testify was because donald trump isn't stipulating to anything. this was very clearly an authentic recording, but trump's team made the people fly the witness in so he could authenticate it, jump through the legal hoops necessary for this tape to be introduced as evidence at trial. and what it will help the jury understand, what we would expect prosecutors to say when the case gets to closing argument is that this is what donald trump said

at the time. and it is very different from what he is saying now and that suggests a consciousness of guilt. >> we're hearing for the first time from inside the courtroom, with msnbc chief legal correspondent ari melber, host of "the beat" and he just made his way out. give us your big takeaways, ari. >> reporter: this was obviously one of the most significant patches of testimony we had about the underlying incidents. you had defendant trump sitting there, in court, as questions were asked about whether as they put it in court does melania know, quote, unquote, that he had an affair, did this happen, quote, unquote, during the marriage, referring to the texts, the tabloid, the senior publisher figure about the nature of the story. i think this was one of the most intense court days for the defendant and clearly from my view, to tell you in the room, i

could see the side of the defendant's face as he watched it, he largely looked composed or nonplussed at times during what was obviously a striking or dramatic moment. i also had a view of the jury and careful about not strike them in detail as a general matter, the jury appeared very attentive, very focused on what was a very eventful set of facts or allegations put forward. and then we also had, of course, as i think you were covering, video of then candidate trump played so the jury could take that in. really it was quite an active couple hours. >> let me ask you, too, about the relationship as you viewed it, between todd blanche, his key lawyer, and donald trump, himself, because there was a large story in "the new york times" today about how trump is getting frustrated, we have seen this before, right. in the past with donald trump, he wants his lawyers to do what he's going to do there, this push and pull. how do you appease your client, but also do what you think is

going to get your client acquitted? did you see anything telling between the two of them? >> well, they were conversing almost like normal today, as i would describe it. this is, as you know, a defendant who -- >> did we lose his mic internally or do we have a problem here? >> i can hear you, can you hear me? all right, i'm going to keep going. i heard chris ask about the microphone, i'm being told i can be heard. we can see defendant trump who is much more active than most defendants in the legal setting, speaking, having side bars. at one point i could see his lawyer blanche kind of covering his mouth, so that the internal cameras that are used inside the court might not pick up anything, but he was having back and forths with defendant trump and we also could see, again, from inside the courtroom, mr. trump going up and down the aisle both sides and looked

stern as he has in other days, but one might say he looked particularly stern today. we would see those interactions with his lawyers and blanche was doing the normal stuff today. they had stuff in front of the jury, they also had stuff without the jury talking about planning and scheduling. to the extent that we're kind of looking for tea leaves about the relationship, it didn't seem to me like an abnormal day for their interactions. >> let me go back to the jury, if i can, for a second, we're going to talk more about this going forward, which is sort of this story that you have to build as a prosecutor, right? and the fact that they brought in a couple of people that maybe they didn't need to, they could have just said the defense could have said, you know what, we're going to say it is okay, you don't need to bring the guy in from cspan, we're going to allow, accept this to come in. but is there any point at which you saw the jury lost attention, sometimes you start talking about things like documents and people who are on, who are not as exciting maybe as the other folks have been, do the jurors

seem engaged and are they still taking notes? >> reporter: they're taking notes. they did appear engaged. and that seemed to be the case for both of the morning sessions where we had that more dramatic testimony about the dealings with mcdougal, about the quote, unquote affair and those questions and those old texts. i didn't detect from watching, i had a pretty clear view from the second row of the jury, i didn't detect them tuning out. you're right as cases drag on, the whole reason that sometimes you come to stipulations with the other side is to avoid doing what you did today, where you sort of have someone from cspan, which all of our viewers know we love cspan, you have somebody there saying, yes, this is really the right tape, this really is donald trump, and if the jury doesn't know, they don't know why it is getting so boring, right? they don't know necessarily the back story of that. but they have been instructed by the judge and my experience jurors tend to follow this when the judge says, hey, there are

reasons we're doing this, they relate to accuracy and fairness, we're not trying to waste your time, the judges put it in more formal language, but, yeah, we got to have these people in so you know the video you're looking at, the text you're looking at, this is all legit. >> jeremy, let me go back to how fast michael cohen moved in his trying to get a loan from first republic bank. there seemed to be a lot of focus on what i call the opening this kind of fast and furiousness, he didn't even open the account to pay stormy daniels until the day before the wire transfer was made. they established that today. how significant is the urgency, again, as they're building this in the overall case? >> michael cohen knew because the boss -- we had to get in front of the story and had to get in front of the story now. if it breaks and goes, it is going to sink my campaign even further and i'm at the cusp of

going forward and having the campaign be successful or i'm not. you got to make sure she's quiet. that's why when he went to the bank, it wasn't any conversation about stormy daniel as farro testified, they're not in that line of business, and i think during cross examination there was a question about whether or not he was in the business of creating shell companies and the response was i create bank accounts for llcs. i'm not a part of this fraud if there is a fraud here. so, it was really clear that they needed to get this job and they needed to get it done now. >> i want to bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin and investigative reporter sue craig who have been in the courtroom overflow all morning where members of the press can listen, can watch what's going on, because there obviously is limited space inside the courtroom. i want to pick up on that conversation if i can, lisa, because you actually wrote about this in our google document about how fast michael cohen tried to push through thisn the false representations he made in

related paper work. what does that tell us about the urgency? >> that cohen had a ton of urgency and yet from first republic's perspective, there was nothing new or awry going on here because of two reasons. one is they knew michael cohen. michael cohen was a person to whom everything was urgent as gary farro testified. the other reason they didn't see anything awry is because they knew that michael cohen was in the real estate business. when he set up essential consultants llc, he said he was establishing a real estate consultancy. that's exactly what happened here with michael cohen on october 26, 2016, he sent them fast and furious, a flurry of

paperwork to open the account and transfer money from his home equity line of credit to this new account by the next morning he was walking into first republic's branch close to trump tower and ordered to wire transfer that money to keep davidson associates whereupon it would be transferred to stormy daniels. on the face of the transaction as gary farro testified, there was nothing about the details that michael cohen at least represented to them that would signal to them that something funny was going on here. >> yeah, that is exactly right, sue, what -- when he went to cross, todd blanche was trying to impugn the credibility of farro as a witness by saying, these guys basically didn't know what they were doing. >> yeah, that's right. and i have to say, this morning's testimony when it got started was a bit dry, but very important because it goes to the falsification of the business

records and you really saw this morning what a footprint it leaves when you're transferring money and we went through this piece by piece by piece to show the various records that were falsified as we went through the morning. >> one of the things that you pointed out, sue, in this, is that farro's testimony was such a great reminder that if you're going to start to move money around, even if you're trying to point fingers in another direction, there is a paper trail. there is an electronic footprint that is hard to get away from, right? and that is something -- i'm going to assume they really pressed on, here's the stuff we can show you that says this is what happened here. >> no, they really did. and sometimes the stuff isn't caught in real time. but afterwards, there is a forensic case that could be built and that's what we're seeing. when a client comes in,

especially with somebody like michael cohen, the bank knew who he was, so he's setting up an account, he's already a known entity, he's doing all these things, and i don't think -- bells did not go off at the time, but they did when all of a sudden first republic and the executives there read about what had happened between michael cohen, stormy daniels, they saw it in the news, and now coming into court years later we have an incredible electronic footprint that has been left of all the transfers. >> understanding that you're in the overflow room, so, you're not in the courtroom itself, but, lisa, did you sense sort of a shift in intensity when you start asking questions that would make any normal juror sit and take notice, like did trump have an affair, does melania know? >> yeah, and if we're talking right now about keith davidson's testimony, i want to take a step backwards, chris, to really

illustrate the shift because we heard from a couple of witnesses earlier this morning who were purely records custodians, the guy, the head of the cspan archives and a guy, an executive with a court reporting service that owns now the company that took trump's deposition in the e. jean carroll case. that was extraordinarily dry testimony, designed to authenticate really basic things that these were in fact, for example, real videos of donald trump on the campaign trail, denying these women. or when e. jean carroll testified that he was married to melania, that that was his real and true statement as transcribed by a court reporter. when we get to keith davidson, we're riding the roller coaster again. we had some really classic testimony this morning important to prosecutors because it connects the dots, now we're on the roller coaster ride again.

i suspect when he talks about the texts with dillon howard, we're going to see some sensational content, particularly as we near the closing of both of these deals. first with karen mcdougal and then later with stormy daniels, when sue and i were talking about the people that work at first republic earlier and cohen's rush to get that done, that shows and proves, you know, there is a paper trail down to the minute in emails showing how fast that happened. now keith davidson is going to illustrate the human side of that, right? cohen told me he was going to pay me, he had been dragging his feet, we didn't have any more time to waste and the election was almost there, the value of my client's story and suppressing it could have been gone and so davidson will put a real human point on the drama of what happened at the bank. >> we already have seen some pretty great stuff. keith davidson came in and he's the guy dealing with dillon howard, the editor looking to buy karen mcdougal's story.

and we didn't open with this, but just five, ten minutes in, it seemed like it, we get this incredible text exchange between dillon howard and the lawyer and he says, keith says to dillon howard, boy, have i got a great trump story for you, he says i got a blockbuster story for you. and they start then having a discussion about how to negotiate it, and, first of all, it seems like there is no interest on the "national enquirer's" side, dillon howard says to keith davidson, well, maybe not, i don't know, we're not interested, and then it looks like karen mcdougal based on the testimony of keith davidson starts talking to abc news. and then dillon howard comes back into the scene and all of a sudden negotiations are back on, and at one point keith davidson was saying that his client was looking for upwards of a million dollars for the story, dillon howard is, like, i'm not sure about that, if we'll be able to meet that number.

that's where we are right now, this incredible negotiation that was going on in los angeles, and i'm sure at some point still in new york, this exchange and also a meeting and in person meeting between dillon howard, karen mcdougal and her lawyer who is on the stand right now and that was out in l.a. we already have really got some great material that came and just for the hour that keith davidson was on the stand. >> can i amplify something? >> sure, please. >> in both sides here are totally motivated to get this deal done. but for different reasons. karen mcdougal has leverage because as sue just mentioned, abc was interested in her story. but telling her story to abc would have necessitated telling her story publicly, which was something she didn't want to do. so ultimately she wants to cut a deal with ami. dillon howard, on the other hand, is the only other person at ami other than david pecker who understands the nature of the arrangement that they have

with donald trump. and so by mid-january of 2016, in a text, dillon howard says i need this to happen. so, despite the fact he's not willing to pay the top dollar that keith davidson initially thinks his client's story is worth, you can see in dillon howard a sense of desperation to quash this story, take karen mcdougal's story off the marketplace and so eventually we're going to learn when davidson returns to the stand exactly how they reached that meeting of the minds, but i think it is important that we're getting sort of a sense of why each side was motivated to cut the deal that eventually happened, even though donald trump himself didn't exchange money with karen mcdougal. >> i think this testimony is going to be important because you've got karen mcdougal, the question is with her, did she want something or not from this. and trump's lawyers have

portrayed this deal that she cut with ami, that it was illegal and that becomes important in terms of the jury believing whether or not there were crimes committed, and are they tied to another crime. and when you're looking at this, i think karen mcdougal's motives here will become important. did she expect something from this deal? or not? david pecker, he testified that, no, in fact, karen mcdougal did get something for this, but really it was a hush money payment, and i think we're going to see this afternoon or as the week see this afternoon or as t week goes on just more information about exactly what karen mcdougal testified and expected from this and i think that will become important in terms of the defense's case on this. >> i don't know if the jury is going to react the same way that you all have, but it is clear when davidson took the stand the interest and frankly a lot of the details really amped up the energy, the interaction.

jeremy sitting here, you wanted to get in on this. i'm seeing you moving your body forward every time they talk. go ahead. >> i think what the prosecution has to do is really, and they're doing it, of course there was something that mcdougal could gain. either way she was going to gain something. that that means and what that was going to be, well, ami was going to dictate that or abc was going to dictate that. if you look at ami as a catch and kill and the urgency of michael cohen to get this job done, then look at it because you have abc, which is the catch and release, and you are playing them off each other as two different endgames. one is silencer, that's how we got a rush, one is, you know what, we'll sign you up too, she's making some money or getting notoriety out of it. but as to abc, she's releasing. that's the fear and the edge gen exigency that came from michael cohen. >> i wonder if there is a second

part of this that they also, unlike maybe talking about michael cohen, one of the things that the prosecution would like to do is to say, look, it is not like these witnesses have an ax to grind. at one point, davidson was asked specifically whether or not he had an immunity agreement. and he said he didn't. steinglass knows he doesn't have an immunity agreement, presumably he asked that question -- >> he doesn't. he doesn't. >> okay. >> he doesn't. i want to be clear about that. so in new york state, if you testify before a grand jury, you have something called use or transactional immunity, something i'm sure jeremy is much more familiar with than i am. if you come in and testify before grand jury, so long as you tell the truth, you have immunity for the events and the circumstances to which you testified. what davidson didn't have is any sort of antecedent cooperation agreement through which he came in from meetings with prosecutors and already before he even entered the door had an

understanding that he was going to tell them what he knew. david pecker is in that category. he did have a cooperation agreement with the d.a.'s office, well before he testified before the grand jury. in this case, keith davidson, by contrast, did not. he said, basically, i received immunity by virtue of my grand jury testimony, but didn't seek it. to your point, i think the point still holds, keith davidson is not a witness with an ax to grind, but is also the case that he did receive some limited forms of immunity for testifying before the grand jury. >> it brings me in a throughline to karen mcdougal which is this, that looking back on her interview with anderson cooper, she seems absolutely -- and, yes, jeremy is right, she was going to get something out of this, right? her main goal was to further her career, which had stalled. she wanted to be a model. she wanted to have television appearances, or whatever. but she was not somebody who came across to me in the

interview that i saw as someone who had negative feelings toward donald trump, she talked pretty openly about the fact that she loved him, she talked about the fact that she believed he loved her, and i wonder if it is helpful to the prosecution to establish these are not folks who are coming here because they hate donald trump, they're trying to get donald trump in trouble, these are people who are coming and going under oath and telling the truth. >> i think it is totally true. look, gary farro, cohen's banker was asked even by the defense, you've never met donald trump, as if distancing him from donald trump, but the best they were going to do, and he hasn't. nobody asked him his opinion about donald trump because it was clear he just never even crossed paths with the guy. david pecker's case, establishing that affection and rhona graff's case, those were important things. with davidson, we're sufficiently far away from

contact with trump himself, that i think it is not even necessary for the prosecution to spend a lot of time there. there are going to be people, though, who will come into the courtroom and i think establish that they have no animosity with trump will be important as it was with pecker as it was with rhona graff and those people include two people who are very close to donald trump, hope hicks, and his former white house secretary madeleine westerholt who is key to the actual crime charged here, the falsification of business records. when you think of the logistics of that, those checks were sent from the trump organization in new york to washington, d.c. at the white house and someone had to put them in front of donald trump for his signature and that person is madeleine westerholt and establishing she doesn't wish trump ill will be important for prosecutors. >> i think another point that was really important that keith davidson raised today was that his client karen mcdougal had three goals in this, the first one was she did want to revive her career, she was interested

in some sort of agreement with ami. the second one was she did want to make money. the third one was she actually did not want her story out there. i think that's important to know. and it sort of cut across some tape that was played -- there was some speeches that donald trump gave that were played in court today. it is the first time we heard his voice in court played. but he was slamming the women saying that they were just after notoriety, they wanted attention, they were coming after him because he's a target. and karen mcdougal seemingly did not want to go the route -- she didn't want attention. in fact, abc would require her if she had signed that deal to come out and tell her story and it is just not what she wanted. and that's why the ami deal was attractive to her. >> i'm going to get in trouble because i'm supposed to let you go, but i have to ask quickly what is good about being in the overflow room, there is an angle

on seeing the defendant in court, or seeing the lawyers or anything that happens between them, there are three cameras set up as i understand to feed the overflow room. one is on the witness, one is on the defense table and one is on the prosecution table, so you have a view of donald trump that, for example, ari melber would not have being in the courtroom. really quickly, your observations on donald trump today. >> sleeping. again. they have tried a number of different devices, yeah, sleeping for a lot of it. i would say they tried a number of different devices to keep trump awake, partially in response or what appears to be in response to collective press corps observations. for example, when there are side bar an attorney doesn't leave his side anymore, because leaving him alone means leaving him to potentially sleep. he has a stack of papers with him at all times now to go through. but neither of those things seem to have protected trump from his own exhaustion today. more than -- more than not, when

i looked up to see how trump was receiving the testimony, trump was not receiving it at all because his eyes were closed. >> i want to make a differential, we don't know if he's sleeping. his eyes are sometimes closed, he could be trying not to react, he could be listening, we have seen him sleeping, but at times today, when keith davidson got up, he was i thought attentive to the testimony and he was popping mints into his mouth, so i think it depends given who is up and where we are in the testimony. >> i will -- >> i would say the morning did not hold his interest. >> that's safe. all right, sue and lisa, thank you, both, very much. peter, you've been very patient. i want to go to you about donald trump. look, it has put a lot of focus today on the details in the heart of the case. you have spent a lot of time covering donald trump. you covered the trump administration. talk to me about donald trump in

the context of what we saw happening today. and what is going through your mind as you're listening to this half hour long conversation. >> i think there are two dynamics here. the lawyers, the prosecutors need to lay out the facts in a methodical way. i think for the broader audience, the broader audience at home that will make its own judgment come november when they're asked to decide whether he's fit for the presidency or not, a lot of americans have already assumed that the facts and evidence interest true, basically that trump did these things, the question then becomes are they important? do they add up to a crime? do they add up to a felony, the consequences of that? and that's the thing that i think remains, of course, a great challenge to the prosecutors. they're doing their job as lawyers. they have to focus on the jury and the judge, they have to worry about rules of law. but in terms of broader audience, the political audience, which is very key here as well, i think the question is making the argument that this

matters, something that goes beyond paper work, not just something unseemly where a guy didn't keep his pants on, there is something important to the broader electorate about what it tells us about the qualifications of the republican nominee for president to be in the oval office again. >> well, you make some excellent points there. we haven't even gotten to the gag order and what the judge had to say about that today because we have been waiting and waiting and waiting to hear. i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst christie greenburg in the court overflow room today. there was a fine, a threat of jail, an order to take down the posts by the deadline was 45 minutes from now. but all those truth social posts that were cited as breaking the gag order, i'm just told, have been deleted. so that's important to point out. tell us more about judge merchan's decision. >> so i think there were some

really notable things about his decision, first, the judge acknowledged the fact that $9,000 for nine violations doesn't mean a whole lot to donald trump. somebody who is wealthy, it is just not going to matter. but the statute says that for each violation the limit for a monetary fine is $1,000. but the judge then says, okay, since i can't fine him more, if the violations continue, then i will impose jail time. so, that word will was very striking to me. and another thing that was interesting was putting aside the fines. why does this order matter to the state? it matters because they gave notice immediately after the judge's decision that they would use this order to cross-examine donald trump were he to take the stand. we saw this in the e. jean carroll trial when donald trump was constantly tweeting and continuing to defame e. jean carroll during the trial, how meaningful that was to punitive

damages there. this would be a similar thing. if donald trump decides to take the stand, they could use his own statements during this trial and show those to the jury. so that is another way it is significant. finally the last thing that struck me was there was a shot here to both michael cohen and stormy daniels from the judge. basically the judge is telling them, if you keep targeting donald trump in your commentary, i may have to exclude you from the gag order going forward, to allow him to respond. so, those are were all very notable features of his decision today. >> that's a pretty significant one. but if i can go back to peter for a minute, i mean, this is no joke. the $9,000 may be 15 cents to you and me, compared to donald trump, but the threat of jail saying, listen, we're drawing a line here, you need to comply with this is something together

different and i'm trying to envision a scenario for donald trump who never listened to authority very much though defiing him in this particular case. >> the question is whether he's going to call the bluff. there is a theory out there, conversation thinking maybe trump is trying to bait the judge into ordering him to jail. that seems a little far fetched in some ways, but you never know, because he obviously seems to be perfectly willing to try to get under the judge's skin. and perhaps he thinks that if the judge were to go that far and put a former president of the united states in lockup, that that would encourage the thesis that the former president has been promoting to his base that this is all a persecution, he's being the victim of a witch-hunt, and this just proves that a democrat judge, as he calls him, locks him up for his free speech. and therefore a martyr complex here he may be playing into. we don't know that. that's speculation. but judging his actions, you have to wonder if he does in fact trying to bait the judge

because otherwise he seems to be heading in that direction, any other defendant normally in this circumstance certainly think would be looking at the inside of a jail cell. >> we know he loves truth social. it is his way of communicating with his base. we have an image. so if people are hearing this reporting, and they go to try to see what we're talking about, this is what they'll find, not found. it is the kind of thing that i don't to speculate, but it could be the type of thing that donald trump will not be happy to see. he knew he had to do it. it got done. but that doesn't mean he has to like it. >> look, through so many court encounters over the last year or so, civil courts and this criminal court, he demonstrated time and time again, he cannot or chooses not to control his tongue. he is going to speak out, he has made that very clear, again and again, and then he plays that to the hilt when it comes to the

crowd. they're trying to gag me, they're trying to stop me from speaking. everybody can talk about me and i can't talk about them as if it is part of the politics of grievance. is he genuinely unable through impulse to keep quiet or is it a strategy or some mix of both, we could guess. but i think that it is hard to imagine he's suddenly going to keep quiet after this. >> and speaking of images, i have to ask you one more question, peter, as i was listening to, well, first of all, i was simultaneously reading our blog, our internal blog, and "the new york times" blog, where there was some belief that donald trump was, indeed, sleeping today and certainly that he had his eyes closed for much of the time. and having his eyes closed for a significant portion of time is something that both sue and lisa affirmed and then i went back to, having been on the campaign trail, where he very effectively against jeb bush used low energy jab. used to get under governor

bush's skin, sleepy joe, talking about the president of the united states, he seems to have been able to figure out a way to turn that into a joke. but i can't believe that donald trump would like the image in people's minds, there are no images of the court, though you have a court sketch artist, i can't believe he would like the idea of people saying, he's sleeping through much of this. in the past, he's denied it. >> yeah, it is such a gift, honestly to the biden campaign. now they can turn this against him. you heard the president over the weekend at the white house correspondents' dinner make a joke of sleepy don, nobody is more delighted by this than president biden. you're not going to be able to call him sleepy joe anymore. that's out the window. colin jost make a joke as well, here we are, 10:00 at night, the president of the united states is doing fine, he's alert, all that, jabbing at trump, and i think you see a new phase of

biden's approach to the former president, instead of holding back, referring to him as the former guy, my predecessor, he's going directly at him and trying to get under his skin, trying to tease him about stormy daniels, tease him about falling asleep in court, really even going after his hair, which is something you haven't heard joe biden do very often against his opponent. he's looking to get a rise out of former president trump. i think he's trying to take the fight to him and encourage his democratic audiences who have been eager for the president to join the fight a little bit more aggressively. >> as a point of privilege, i want to say i was delighted, peter baker, to see you receive an award at the us who correspondents' dinner, for excellence in presidential news coverage under deadline pressure, something i witnessed firsthand at the white house together. congratulations. thank you, peter, thank you, joyce, thank you, jeremy. up next, where are the prosecutors taking the narrative text and who are the most

valuable witnesses you might not expect? we have that coming up after a short break. we have that coming up after a short break. 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. ♪ this homestyle chicken salad wrap from subway this is how you do it. savory chicken, crisp veggies all wrapped up— these wraps are amazing. people can hear my thoughts? that's a problem. stay fresh out there with all—new wraps from subway. i love your dress. oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”?

baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ when others divide. we unite. with real solutions to help our kids. like community schools. neighborhood hubs that provide everything from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools. ...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org

and they're all coming? they become centers of their communities. those who are still with us, yes. grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly. from chavez and huerta to striking janitors in the 90s to today's fast-food workers. californians have led the way. now, $20/hour is here. thanks to governor newsom and leaders in sacramento, we can lift workers out of poverty. stop the race to the bottom in the fast-food industry. and build a california for all of us. thank you governor and our california lawmakers for fighting for what matters.

as a story for the jury, the case that prosecutors are making against donald trump is alternatively salacious and mundane. engrossing testimony with humdrum details like the banking documents we were seeing today. but all of that, again, to advance the story. as an op-ed in "the new york times" puts it, it is not unusual for lawyers to give narrative arcs to their legal theories, reasons to care about the evidence and animating thoughts that may make jurors more inclined to acquit or convict. the key is to offer one that is both captivating and closely tied to the facts so when the jurors put the pieces of evidence together, it is a story they believe. so, where are we in the story prosecutors want to tell, where are they going and which witnesses to come will help them fill in the blanks?

criminal defense attorney and msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos joins me now. so, people clearly and understandably think the flashiest witnesses might be stormy daniels and karen mcdougal, michael cohen. but are they the most important people necessarily to this narrative? >> sometimes the most important witness can be the most boring witness. and especially in a white collar type case like this, you look at gary farro, he's not one of the big names in the case, and even some of the testimony got a little dense, but he's critical to establishing one of the transactions. you could almost say that after gary farro's testimony that the transaction involving michael cohen and davidson, the transfer, the setup of the account, the funding, all of that, you could almost argue that the people have already met their burden already with gary farro. one of the things the defense pointed out, gary farro didn't know much about donald trump, the people will address that on their own. here is another example of a

witness whose name you may have heard of but she may not be on the stand that long, hope hicks. hope hicks, she was involved, she was at some of these meetings, both in 2015, 2018, david pecker talked about that, now, we also don't know what exactly she'll testify to, but we know she met with the grand jury, we know the people may call her. if the people call her, she's got something that is really interesting and relevant to the case. >> we also know that he trusts her implicitly. and so he would not have edited himself in any way, presumably, in conversations with her. >> maybe, maybe not. but often the person who is around someone like trump all the time, madeleine westerhout, hope hicks, they may not have something disclosed to them in confidence, but you overhear things. like david pecker testified at the 2015 meeting, hope hicks was in and out and wasn't really there. that doesn't mean hope hicks didn't have ears and wasn't listening. she may have heard a lot more than donald trump knows that she

knows. so, that is why someone like hope hicks, the other reason why she's a solid witness, she doesn't have the credibility issues of michael cohen or david pecker. >> but let's talk about michael cohen. he was sold as the star witness, right, in all of this. talk about him as a witness, with credibility problems. >> so, a great example. michael cohen far and away will be the star witness and i use that in quotes because he's the one everybody is waiting to hear from. but ultimately when the smoke clears, is he the most critical witness to the people's case? yes, he is in the sense that he was at the center of this transaction. and, yes, the people have already said that he has credibility issues. they got on top of that in the front of the case. and you have to do that as prosecutors, prosecutors, michael cohen's credibility problems strt to fall away. when david pecker corroborates it. when gary corroborates the transaction and documents, now

you don't worry so much about cohen's credibility. >> let's touch on karen mcdougle and stormy daniels. >> they're actually very different characters even though they occupy similar spaces and that both allegedly had relationships with donald trump. but karen mcdougle, arguably, you don't need much of her testimony at all. she's certainly an interesting witness but in terms of proving things, there's not a lot more you get out of here that will be introduced by davidson or by gary fero. you can make the argument they barely need karen mcdougle but need a character like stormy daniels. her transaction is at the center of this case. but i say that if you have enough gary fero testimony, enough testimony by other people to know about the transaction. >> but the jury's going to want to see her. >> you've got to call stormy

daniels and mcdougle. the fact that a witness is interesting doesn't -- >> thank you so much. >> ahead in our next hour, we'll speak to a former executive vice president of the trump organization. but first, we'll turn to another major story we're following today. columbia university protestors storming and occupying a building on campus. we'll head there live after this. you're watching chris jansing reports only on msnbc. g chris j reports only on msnbc. 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. what is cirkul? cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul is your frosted treat with a sweet kick of confidence. cirkul is the effortless energy that gets you in the zone. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. memory foam doesn't come close. get your best sleep guaranteed. save up to $800 during our memorial day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you

columbia university is warning students, stay away from campus after pro palestinian protestors stormed and occupied a school building overnight, defying orders to break up their encampments. video shows masked people smashing windows, barricading doors and flying a flag that says -- an arabic word meaning uprising or rebellion. the demonstrations that began nearly two weeks ago have spread to at least 50 schools across the country. more than 1200 people have been arrested as authorities try to clean up the encampments. antonia hilton is reporting from columbia university once again today. what are you hearing from protestors inside building? what the university? what do we know about what the standoff might go from here?

>> reporter: hey, chris. the protestors have been very clear. they say they plan to stay inside this building behind me until the university meets their demands, divestment from israel or organizations and businesses doing business with israel. but the administration is also standing firm on their side, releasing a new statement and i'll read some of it for you. we regret that protestors have chosen to escalate the situation through their actions. our top priority is restoring safety and order on our campus. later in the statement, they say students occupying the building face expulse. as the 2:00 p.m. deadline came and went yesterday, it became clear there was going to be an escalation of some kind. whether that meant the nypd would be invited back on campus or the students would do something different. we can now see they had this plan to take over this building

that has been taken over by other student activists in the past. they quickly executed this in the early hours of the morning. so the question now on campus for students who saw this unfold is how did it all get to this point and what does the school do next, chris. >> antonia, thank you. and moments from now, we're expecting trump's hush money trial to resume and we'll have the latest next on chris jansing reports right after this. test ng reports right after this sometimes, the lows of bipolar depression feel darkest before dawn. with caplyta, there's a chance to let in the lyte™. caplyta is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and ii depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion,

stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. caplyta can help you let in the lyte™. ask your doctor about caplyta. find savings and support at caplyta.com (♪♪) when life spells heartburn... how do you spell relief? r-o-l-a-i-d-s rolaids' dual-active formula begins to neutralize acid on contact. r-o-l-a-i-d-s spells relief. (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. some people just know that the best rate for you

is a rate based on you, with allstate. because there are people out there who aren't you. a lot of them. and you don't drive like... whoa. i don't want my child being raised by a robot! other drivers are not you. yes, thank you so much to all 50 of my subscribers. nope, definitely not you. save with drivewise and get a rate based on you. you're in good hands with allstate.