♪♪ welcome back to our second hour of "chris jansing reports." after a morning of testimony both legally significant and salacious, we're just about 15 minutes away from the jury's scheduled return from a break in donald trump's hush money trial. and the former president is already back in the building and speaking. here's what he told us just moments ago. >> getting ready to spend another day in the courthouse, which is bogus trial that every leading authority on law says should never have been brought, that alvin bragg didn't want to bring until the election happened, and then he brought it. you know that this case could have been brought eight years ago, could have been brought eight years ago. instead, they wait and wait and wait. they know it's not a good case, and now it turns out to be, they've lost every -- they have no case. they have no case.

but we have a very -- >> opinion not necessarily grounded in fact. when testimony does resume, keith davidson, the former lawyer for stormy daniels will be back on the stand to continue cross-examination that has gotten heated to say the least. trump's defense attorney trying to portray davidson as an extortionist as a business in sleaze, he brought up other stories involving hulk hogan, lindsay lohan and charlie sheen. yasmin vossoughian is reporting from outside the courthouse. also chuck rosenberg, former fbi official and msnbc analyst. duncan loven, managing partner of loven and associates. danny cevallos is still with me in studio. he is a criminal defense attorney and an msnbc legal analyst. duncan, i'm going to start with you as the prosecutor in the house, and new to our panel,

what has to happen this afternoon? how do they move this case forward now? >> i think the prosecutors need to continue to hammer home the two main points, which is why this testimony is so riveting and important. i thought the cross-examination was largely ineffective. they're trying to portray this lawyer a sleazebag, who peddles in his clients' sexual lee say liaisons for money. michael cohen wasn't acting on his own. he was a conduit to donald trump. what they want to show is a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws, and they need to show the defendant himself was responsible for it. number one, hammer home that michael cohen wasn't acting on his own and this isn't about covering affairs so his wife didn't find out, this is about the election. if they continue to rehabilitate him on that, they will be fine.

that's really all they need to do. >> what did you think, chuck, so far today was the biggest points that the prosecution scored? >> to duncan's point, what the government has to do, prosecutors have to do is stick to the central theme and bring their case back to their central facts. the allegations and the indictment, that's what they have to prove. i think most of the cross, and i agree with duncan on this as well, of mr. davidson was, you know, somewhere between ineffective and beside the point. is he in a commendable business? absolutely not. not something i would ever want to do with my life professionally. but this is how he makes his living. the jurors get that. the government elicited it. the defense is sort of hammering home, but it doesn't distract from the central themes of the case that there was a plot, a conspiracy, a scheme, if you will, chris, to falsify books and records of the trump organization to conceal or commit election fraud. as long as the government stays

on that track, and i imagine they will, i think they're going to be okay. >> i want to talk about a couple of people who we believe will be witnesses. we're pretty sure that michael cohen will be a witness, but who have not been on the stand yet. danny, michael cohen, by our count he's been mentioned over a thousand times so far in this trial. it's a familiar and popular story from the bible to today, the repentance are center. that's the way that michael cohen has tried to rebuild himself, rebuild essentially his character. if the jury obviously buys that or at least believes him, it obviously would be very helpful to the prosecution. let me remind some folks of the ways in which michael cohen has attempted this. >> i regret the day i said yes to mr. trump. i regret all the help and support i gave him along the

way. i am ashamed of my own failings. i have made my mistakes and i have owned them publicly. i cannot make anybody believe me. all i can do is to make amends with my family and with the country and to tell the truth. >> i will not cease my commitment to law enforcement. i will continue to provide information, testimony, documents and my full cooperation. >> so maybe he does a little bit of that on the stand, who knows. but what we saw today, for example, when it was very clear that the people involved in that deal did not have any certainty at all that he was actually going to come through, they didn't trust him. he was called a jerk. he was called hopeless. i think at one point they laughed about him when they were talking about him. how tough is it to convince a jury that even if all of those things are true, even if the people didn't trust him, didn't believe him that what he says on the stand is true. >> it's not tough. and case in point, we have two

other prosecutors on this panel who undoubtedly have used cooperating witnesses. they have been used since time and memorial because they work. the fact that they have credibility problems, morality problems, reliability problems are things that defense attorneys like me have complained about for millennia, but at the same time, prosecutors use them because they're effective, because jurors can look past the flaws in a human and find them believable and that's exactly what the people are going to say in their closing. it's no surprise that in the prosecution's case in chief, michael cohen is getting hit with shrapnel. the prosecution doesn't mind that because they know if they don't do it now, the defense is going to bring it up that he's unreliable, not to be trusted and all of these other typical attacks and i promise you that when the prosecution stands up in their closing, they're going to give some version of the closing argument that michael cohen may not be a trust worthy person.

maybe you wouldn't trust michael cohen to watch your kids, but he's come here, he's barred your soul and when it comes to criminals, criminals hang out with other criminals. we didn't choose donald trump, i almost got through it. michael cohen was chosen by donald trump. so that's what we had to do as the prosecutors, we had to go get a criminal to catch a criminal, and we can match up the transcript with what i just spit out right there and see if it's pretty close because it will be. >> there was also a lot of talk about stormy daniels who is at the center of this or at least starts them leading toward the charges that are filed against donald trump. during questioning, keith davidson refused to accept the prosecution's characterization of stormy daniels' payment as hush money. he pushed back against this hard. he instead called it a consideration. he kept saying they were pushing and pushing and pushing him. they kept saying, what would you call it, a consideration? is that more for him or does

that have legal bearing on this? >> i don't think it matters one way or the other, to be honest. let's take a step back. this case, you might get lost in it a little bit, and be forgiven for remembering this is a case about falsifying business records. it's a misdemeanor and the d.a.'s office didn't charge it as a misdemeanor in part because the statute of limitations had lapsed. they charged as a felony because falsifying business records with the intent to defraud and the intent to commit or conceal another crime is a felony. the other crime here being a conspiracy to violate the new york state election law statute that deals with a conspiracy to violate the federal election laws. that is a mouthful. that's what these jurors have to get through. that's why we're in conspiracy land here. we're talking about a conspiracy, and frankly, the d.a.'s main theory here is that the money sent to stormy daniels is a campaign expenditure. it doesn't matter whether you call it hush money or

consideration. he's probably trying to cover his own self. here's under attack here. he came off as very embarrassed during the cross-examination today about the sort of unseemly work he was engaged in, as opposed to david pecker who came across as much more forthright and owned what he was doing in terms of the wheeling and dealing and sexual liaisons. it doesn't matter what you call it. at the end of the day, the jury has to decide was this a campaign expenditure and was it promoting an election by unlawful means. >> yasmin, a duel question, one is what happened before all of the testimony which we just talked about, the gag order. bring us up to speed. do we know when the judge is going to rule on those four different cases that the prosecution says, that donald trump violated the gag order, and secondly, do we know where

we go after the lunch break? >> no, and maybe the answer to your first question. no, not exactly the day, but maybe because the last time it took seven days it came to a judgment for the last gag order violation. we're looking at a week's time here. we do know and we can glean as to where the judge is leaning when it comes to gag orders. i'm going to walk you through that. there was four potential gag order violations, one with the jury, one with david pecker, brought up by the prosecution. david pecker is a nice guy. donald trump is essentially saying this at one point before david pecker's testimony. two with michael cohen saying, and i'm paraphrasing, michael cohen is a liar. michael cohen is not going to be a good witness, he's problematic. things we have heard repeatedly when it comes to the star witness, michael cohen. then it's the jury at which the former president said 95% of the jury is democrats.

it seemed as if during a gag order hearing earlier today, the judge is leaning more towards finding donald trump in violation of what he said about the jury. we know as part of the gag order, the former president could not speak ill of the jury or cannot speak at all of any witnesses or any potential witnesses. it seems if judge juan merchan is leaning in the direction of holding donald trump in violation of a gag order when he spoke about the jury. when it comes to michael cohen, he's more on the fence. david pecker, he's less concerned. he said that in court today. one other thing i think is important to mention is the defense brought up by todd blanche, who seemed more prepared this time around during the gag order hearing, when it came to michael cohen. and todd blanche essentially is saying michael cohen does not deserve protection. if you give me a moment, i'm going to read what todd blanche said in court this morning when

it came to michael cohen talking about tiktok. mr. cohen has started going on tiktok nightly and making money. he encourages folks to give him money. his tiktok criticizes donald trump. this is not a man who needs protection from the gag order. at one point judge juan merchan kind of concedes that this doesn't necessarily specifically name michael cohen and stephanie clifford, aka stormy daniels as people that should be included in this gag order, but all witnesses be included in this gag order. that certainly is an argument being made by todd blanche, whether or not the judge is actually going to concede and say, michael cohen doesn't deserve this protection. it's not likely. certainly we expect a decision to come down in the next couple of weeks, couple of days, i should say, and or a week, chris. >> thank you so much for that. all right. chuck. stormy daniels, i want to go back to her. an appearance she made on jimmy

kimmel in 2018 was brought up in testimony today in which she was confronted on her statement denying an affair with donald trump. i want to first take a look back at that. >> did you sign this letter that was released today? >> i don't know, did i? >> wait a minute, that you can say. >> that does not look like my signature, does it? >> it doesn't look like your signature. you're saying perhaps this letter was written and released without your approval. do you know where it came from? do you have any idea? >> i do not know where it came from. it came from the internet. >> you deny having anything too old with this letter. >> i also work for the fbi and i'm a man according to the internet. >> so obviously she's having a good time on jimmy kimmel, but to the point of this, the question really is about i think her credibility, the fact that she denied in writing having a

relationship with donald trump. her lawyer argued in his argument, this was a one time thing that they had, and done. not a relationship. how does this play into the overall case, chuck? >> again, you know, chris, you take your witnesses as you find them. as with mr. cohen, stormy daniels lied and told the truth and parsed the truth and recanted the truth. this is not unusual. this happens all the time. danny made that point earlier when danny did a better closing argument than i have ever done as a prosecutor. you take your witnesses as you find them. when you put them on the stand as a prosecutor, you have them go through all of the false tales they have told. you explain to the jury in context why they lied and why they're telling the truth now,

and the jury going to decide whether or not they're believable but it is believable because i have seen this play out in court over and over again adds a prosecutor that the first time you confront somebody, they don't tell the truth, and then later they do. and jurors understand that sequence. they may understand that metamorphosis. it is not complicated. it's happening right now in courtrooms across the country, state and federal. it's what you're seeing in mr. trump's trial. >> all right. so right now they have gone back in, and i want to take a look at the doc that we have here, danny. donald trump is back at the defense table and before the jury comes in, judge merchan asks if there's anything else to discuss and susan necheles who's one of the attorneys, wants to bring up the gag order. articles in which president trump would like to post on his truth, i think truth social, but they discussed this case. they discussed witnesses who are going to testify.

they are all articles discussing this case and are critical, talking about issues that concern us, mentioning witnesses and prosecutors. it goes on and on and on. she says, look, we think they're perfectly fine but we think there is ambiguity in the gag order. does she have a point? >> she has a point, but this may already be what's called law of the case. justice merchan issued his decisions that reposts, as far as he's concerned by trump are considered his own speech. that's interesting. i think there's some gray area on that. >> are they essentially saying we want you to vet these things before posting? we want to make sure we're not in violation, maybe? >> i mean, so the question is can donald trump repost articles, do we have to read them beforehand. justice merchan said when donald trump reposts, it's his own speech, especially if he adds to it, puts a comment on in the case of the jesse waters

comment, he changed the wording. >> it didn't take judge merchan long, i'm not going to be in the position of looking at posts and determining in advance whether you should or should not post. is implicit in that message, i don't want to go into judge merchan's brain, but this is a pretty straightforward gag order. you ought to know what you can and cannot do? >> yes and no. i think that's the message, but the judge would be in an untenable position to decide in advance what donald trump could post. imagine if they went down that road. every morning there's a memorandum on his desk, hey, he wants to post this, that or this article, and justice merchan has to waste time looking through these posts, hmm, that one would be okay. he's essentially saying, you do what you do, if you violate, we'll be back here. you have heard my views on these issues like reposting, you know where i stand, and going forward, you've already been fined, so you make your choices as you see fit. it's all the same choices

defendants have to make when they're on pretrial release. when they're given a bunch of rules to follow. i have never heard of a defendant saying can i go on my front porch to get the mail or maybe i can just ask you in the morning everything i'm allowed to do. you know the rules, you're told the rules. if you interpret them in a way that's on the edge, that's on you. the problem is, and i do get trump's argument. he is a political candidate. he needs to speak. if his decision goes the way of the latest gag order violations, it's probably going to be because people like michael cohen are hurting the prosecution's argument for a gag order violation. >> davidson is back on the stand. the jury is coming in. but merchan's final word on this whole issue was i think if in doubt steer clear. that's all i'm going to say. donald trump didn't steer clear.

i'm not suggesting this violates the gag order. he was on truth social over the break. contrary to the fake news media, i don't fall asleep during the crooked d.a.'s witch hunt, especially not today. i simply close my beautiful blue eyes, sometimes, listen intently, and take it all in. all in caps. you can't predict, but the jury is to some extent watching, right? >> they are watching every move he makes. it's something as a defense attorney now i tell my clients and you know that it's just human nature that they're all watching him. they're watching every move he makes, and if he's furiously writing down on his notes, whatever he's doing, they're taking it all in. frankly, it's as important as the words they're hearing coming off the witness stand. i think he is a problematic client, not only for the posts and gag orders but his demeanor too, and judge merchan is right at the precipice of throwing him in jail for the violations of the gag order. >> oh, this is interesting, let

me give you guys, and i'll get your reaction to what lisa rubin is now posting as people who watch frequently know, we have both what's happening in court and also the observations that our lawyers there. want proof that donald trump doesn't want time in jail, reposting of articles by legal commentators who are critical f the case, some which mentioned prosecutors by name and/or discuss witnesses. >> judge merchan has set this up saying if you violate this gag order one more time, i'm going to throw you in jail. he set that up. these thousand dollar fines which are statutorily capped at a thousand dollars is not sufficient, you're a man of great wealth, and so it's clearly not doing anything. if you do it again, i'm going to throw you in jail. they're in a gray area, too, where they're afraid. a lot of observers said maybe

he's trying to put himself in jail, fund raise off of it. i don't think so. i think by susan necheles's actions, somebody taking it seriously at this point, and afraid that the judge is going to put him into a jail cell. >> does this mean that judge juan merchan believes that the gag order is clear, but if they think it's ambiguous, they have an appeal that they can make, right, ultimately? >> ultimately. but no gag order really, in fairness, is ever completely clear. gag orders all involve constitutional conflicts in the sense that someone has a first amendment right to speak, and arguably political speech is more cherished than regular protected speech, and of course you have the public's sixth amendment right to a fair trial and the judges need to protect witnesses and protect his courtroom. gag orders are always problematic. justice merchan realizes that. if you got ten judges in a rule

and asked them to rule on the gag order violations, i don't think that you would get the same result from every judge. that's an appealable issue. the bottom line is the judge has to make decisions in realtime, and he's going to err on the side of protecting the jury and protecting the parties and the witnesses. >> all of our lawyers, please stick around. coming up, new nbc reporting about donald trump's reported grumblings that he doesn't have enough people defending him, but with no family in court today and just a few protesters outside, can his team adjust the optics. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ (ella) fashion moves fast. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 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. i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price?

$9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

and they're all coming? those who are still with us, yes. grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

we have brand new nbc reporting. a source familiar with donald trump's private conversations says he has complained that while he's stuck in court, quote, no one is defending me. now, earlier this week, his son eric did attend the trial, but that remains the one and only appearance by a family member. he also has reportedly grumbled that there are no protesters outside supporting him. again today, to our cameras, we only saw a few people outside. let's bring in sarah matthews, who served as donald trump's white house press secretary. chuck rosenberg, danny cevallos, and duncan lovin are still with me. how focused do you think donald trump is on the actual number of people, whether they're family members inside the courtroom or

the fact that in many many days of this trial, the number of people outside supporting him are in single digits? >> yeah, donald trump is definitely paying close attention to this. look, he's someone who's all about branding and optics, and he knows it's not necessarily the best look that he had his family by his side the first couple of weeks that there aren't crowds of protesters outside supporting himment you kno -- him. you know, he feeds off the energy. to not assemble outside the courthouse, and putting him in a bad mood. he's lashing out at aides. now he's seeing folks support him by his side, whether it's aides or surrogates and family members. you noted eric trump came. i imagine that moving forward, that will be the case, that they'll continue to try to bring people to be around him so he feels a little bit less embarrassed about the situation. >> are you surprised it hasn't

happened so far? >> i mean, i guess i'm not necessarily surprised in terms of family. i think that, you know, melania, i wouldn't really expect her to be by his side during this trial. look, she hasn't even campaigned with him yet. i don't think when we're talking about a case where he made a hush money payment to a porn star or had an affair with her and then paid her off because he had this affair just days after melania gave birth to their son, i wouldn't imagine that she wants to sit through a trial like this. and so i do think we'll see other family members make appearances and other aides. i wouldn't imagine someone like her would come. >> there have also been reported not confirmed by nbc news but other organizations who say melania doesn't want him to go to jail. whatever their relationship is, whatever she feels about this trial, she doesn't want her son's father, her husband in jail. i want to read you something,

though, that jury consultant, who helped select the robert jury. if this guy was smart, he would have his beautiful wife in court every day. the fact that she's not there, that sends a message. you can do all the righteous indignation all day long but you have to walk the walk and talk the talk. is there something to that? >> i do think there's something to that. it's always helpful to have family in the courtroom. the jury watches everything so much so, the loudest speech in the courtroom is from those who aren't speaking at all. defense attorneys tell their client, sit there and look not guilty. whatever that means, i'm not entirely sure but i know what it doesn't mean. it means don't pull on my sleeve. don't look panicked. don't be annoying, the attorney is trying to try the case. similarly, if you have family behind the defense table, that can be helpful.

you know who knows this fact, prosecutors. go to any federal trial and around closing argument time, you'll see the prosecutor's side fill up with the agents who testified to come in a show of support for the government and their pursuit of justice. we've got two former federal prosecutors on the panel, they'll tell you that's exactly what they do because they know another rule that's existed since time and memorial, that is that the jury is watching everyone. they're watching who comes to support each side. if ten fbi agents come to sit behind the government, that looks good for the government. if you're the defense and you have mom, dad, wife, kids, it looks good for the defense. can we measure that statistically? probably not. it's just something we have known forever. >> i'm remembering when danny's talking, chuck, that i once covered a trial where when lawyers would go up to the bench for, you know, a little bit of a discussion, often the jurors were looking at the defendant, who was a convicted serial

killer, and he would always be doing "the new york times" cross word puzzle and you could almost see people making note of that. that was not how they viewed him, given his background and the fact that he was a serial killer. trump lawyers are trying to, and i'm not making a comparison with this case, except to the point of how jurors watch, right, and we have been led to believe, nbc news is reporting that now donald trump has a stack of papers before him, which he marks up during testimony, and brings out to cite during remarks to the press. when lawyers huddle with the judge at the bench, one attorney often remains at the defense table so trump isn't seen sitting alone, which some have said make him look small. whoever the defendant is, but let me ask you specifically in the case of donald trump, are these things important. are they things that jurors pay attention to? >> let me be the third person to say that jurors watch everything, chris. and i know that firsthand

because i used to get report back from the court security officer that my suit wasn't pressed and my shoes weren't shined. my suit was never pressed and my shoes were never shined. it wasn't a surprise to me. putting that aside, i think that we spend too much time thinking about sort of the thee attheate. i respectfully disagree with danny on this. i used to go often if i could, if i was free, to watch the closing arguments of my colleagues because i was interested and because i could learn from it. you watch what other prosecutors do and defense attorneys do and you try and become better at your craft, but, you know, who

you arrange behind the defendant, whether he's doing a cross word puzzle in pen or pencil, i think all of that at the end of the day is beside the point. i do get the fact that we try and control the things that we think we can control. i don't know that we're as good as it as we hope to be. >> everybody stand by. coming up, where is my roy cohn, how the ghost of donald trump's most inflames lawyer still lingers over the hush money trial. trial. audio, expansive display space, endless entertainment, and more comfort for everyone. but even with all that... we still left room for all the unpredictability, spontaneity and unexpected things you'll find out here. the new 2024 grand cherokee lineup. jeep. there's only one. wanna know a secret? with new secret outlast, you can almost miss the bus... but smell like you didn't. secret fights 99% of odor-causing bacteria.

smell fresh for up to 72 hours. secret works! it's a crime to smell that good. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well ♪ ♪ jardiance! ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance ♪

♪ at each day's start! ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to see ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪ jardiance works twenty-four seven in your body to flush out some sugar. and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. you may have an increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of infection in your legs or feet. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell ♪ ♪ the little pill ♪ ♪ with a big story to tell! ♪ when you own a small business every second counts. save time marketing with constant contact. with email, sms and social posts

all in one place. so you still have time to make someone's day. start today at constantcontact.com. raising you was no bed of roses. are you getting me anything for mother's day? go to 1-800-flowers.com. oh my gosh! wow! gorgeous! i feel like royalty. thank you. 1-800-flowers.com. happy mother's day. happy mother's day!

donald trump in attack mode yet again, slamming the judge in his new york hush money trial as crooked, all as he awaits a ruling from judge merchan about whether he violated his gag order. >> the judge, by the way, is the most conflicted person in the history -- i don't think there's ever been a more conflicted judge, crooked and conflicted. every one of these fake cases is [ bleep ] . every single one of them. >> well, trump's tactic of constantly pushing back reflects the influence of a lawyer who still holds sway decades after his death. roy cohn, the ruthless red baiting aid to joseph mccarthy, and mentor to a young donald trump. joining us now, mark fischer, coauthor of "trump revealed," chuck rosenberg, danny cevallos back with us. quote, the legendary new york

street fighter taught trump to always hit back 100 times harder than he's been punched. i wonder how all of that informs what we're seeing from donald trump now while he's on trial. >> well, you're seeing the remnants of roy cohn's lessons to donald trump. always hit back, attack and counter attack. never apologize. but you're also seeing the tremendous frustration that's been shot through donald trump's now nine years in politics when he's constantly turning to his aides and saying, where's my roy cohn. what does that mean? that means he wants this ruthless side kick defender, who's going to be more concerned about how things play in public, and how to push back in the arena of public fighting, rather than adhering to the niceties and rules and norms of the legal system. so donald trump now has a very good attorney in todd blanche. when you look every morning at

trump coming out and making his opening blast at the judge, you see todd blanche standing there looking as if his child is having a tantrum. he's just grim faced and embarrassed and humiliated, perhaps. what trump wants, what trump thinks he needs is a roy cohn, a lawyer who's going to be there fighting as hard as he is, and blasting through the rules and norms. that's what trump believes, and he has half a century of evidence on his side. that's what he believes is going to win this for him. delay of the station winning over the public, painting himself as a victim, and attacking everyone involved on the other side. >> you know, it all plays into, i think, danny, donald trump's current frustrations that have been reported by "the new york times" about todd blanche. they seem to have a good relationship, but privately, apparently, according to "the new york times" reporting, he has been griping that blanche

has not been following his instructions, insufficiently aggressive, and that trump wanted him to attack witnesses and he hasn't been doing it the way he wants him to. but as long as he sits quietly in court behind that table, whether he's got his eyes closed or open and the jury doesn't see it, does it matter? >> i have so much sympathy for todd blanche. as an attorney, there are a lot of people who maybe see trial work or being on trial as exciting and raucous, and dramatic, i have to confess, i don't. i think it is soul crushing. todd blanche and his team, they're in trial all day, and when the trial ends, the work begins. they're going to be at the office preparing into the wee hours for they don't know what the next day, and the last thing you want when you're on trial is some client making your life more difficult for you by giving his uneducated opinion about how you're doing at your job. trump wants this mythical roy cohn figure, and lo and behold,

he hasn't been able to find that figure, and i think because that myth really doesn't exist in the modern courthouse, when you go around a modern courthouse, you can find that lawyer who has a reputation for fighting on every point and making outrageous arguments. he's usually someone that barely has any clients and can only get court appointments. this is not somebody that's going to be at the top, the pinnacle of criminal defense. the image of some lawyer that fights tooth and nail and makes a scene over ever issue. it's not how that works. and i can't imagine how frustrating it is for todd blanche to have a client who's not only second guessing him but giving him a hard time mid trial knowing that that is something the jury sees and actually hurts them. the client has to do literally nothing during the trial except sit there and not bother the lawyers. and when they can't do that, it is so maddening. i can't hold back my anger. >> you're getting a little frustrated. >> i'm frustrated, yes because i

feel todd blanche's pain. this many years into the trump experience, you know that's what you're getting as a client. >> the thing about donald trump, marc, is he obviously feels this kind of approach has worked for him, but the cautionary tale about roy cohn is that he didn't get away with it in the end, right? the irs closed in, he was disbarred. i mean, do you think that donald trump just didn't learn anything from watching his mentor unraveling? there was an employee, a former employee of the trump org who worked very closely with donald trump for many years who was on the program earlier in the week, and she said she doesn't believe trump is scared at all. i wonder your take on all of that? >> i think trump is frightened, and we heard evidence minutes ago, the wait he is seeking permission now to tweet or

re-tweet other people's criticisms. it does indicate a certain reticence on his part, but his desire for roy cohn, yes, he was disbarred and disgraced and has become a legendary figure in history of a kind of lawyer gone bad. on the other hand, he is an important figure in american history. he was at the side of senator joseph mccarthy in communist hunting episodes of the 1950s. he was really the pivotal mentor in donald trump's life, and so there is a role for those kind of people, not just in trump's life, but in our politics these days. and trump has people like that around him. a roger stone, a steve bannon, but they tend not to be lawyers, and this is the key differential. the lawyers who are willing to work for trump want to win the case and therefore they want to adhere to norms. they don't want to tee off

against the judge who's handling their own case whereas trump wants that. so they're just never going to get along. he's not going to find another roy cohn of the stature he needs and of the talent he needs to prevail in a case like this. on the other hand, trump knows that he has the experience to back him up. rule breaking, doing runs around norms, works. when you disrespect and mistrust and violate the rules of the system, you often do get away with it, especially if you're donald trump. >> marc fisher, such fascinating stuff, danny cevallos, thank you, chuck and duncan, you're both going to stay close. still to come donald trump's first ever account to what he said to the secret service when he tried to go to the capitol on january 6th. keep it right here. keep it right here

(♪♪) i'm getting vaccinated with pfizer's pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine. so am i. because i'm at risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. come on. i already got a pneumonia vaccine, but i'm asking about the added protection of prevnar 20®. if you're 19 or older with certain chronic conditions like asthma, diabetes, copd, or heart disease, or are 65 or older, you are at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. prevnar 20® is approved in adults to help prevent infections from 20 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. in just one dose. don't get prevnar 20® if you've had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, fatigue, headache, and joint pain. i want to be able to keep my plans. i don't want to risk ending up in the hospital with pneumococcal pneumonia. that's why i chose prevnar 20®. ask your doctor or pharmacist about the pfizer vaccine

for pneumococcal pneumonia. cordless outdoor power, brings you the ego power+ string trimmer with powerload technology. feed the line, push the button and get back to work. ego, exclusively at lowe's, ace and ego authorized dealers. anthony: this making you uncomfortable? good. when you've got type 2 diabetes like me, you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack or worse death. even when meeting your a1c goal. discomfort can help you act. i'm not trying to scare you. i'm empowering you... to get real with your health care provider. talk to them about lowering your risk of stroke, heart attack or death.

i want to take you back

inside the courtroom where there's been a little bit of back and forth involving headphones, things the jury cannot hear. we do not know what they're listening to, what i can say is that michael cohen often recorded conversations that he had with people during the time period, including some are what are said to be very critical conversations for the prosecution's case. let me tell you what our folks inside are saying, and this has happened a couple of times. and that is that keith davidson, who is on the stand, is putting on headphones. he's listening to the recording so that the rest of the court can't hear, but prosecutors also had headphones on. so do the defense lawyers. at one point, one of the defense lawyers asks him, that was your voice, right, and he says yes. duncan lovin, they keep putting headphones on, taking them off, going back and forth. >> they're trying to lay a foundation to get the evidence before the jury. it's not always as simple as

saying here's a recording. we saw it earlier in the trial, the c-span tapes were being -- >> is this frustrating to the prosecution. why can't you just stipulate that this is him. >> this is a normal part of every trial. basically when you get a tape, you're just authenticating it. the other part of it is, what's interesting, is the defense side hasn't stipulated to anything. i think it's in part a ruse. they go outside afterwards and say this judge is keeping me from the campaign trail. at the same time, they're not stipulating to the admission of basic pieces of evidence here. it is squarely their fault that this part of the trial is taking so long, and they have to call all of these unnecessary witnesses. but this piece of it in particular was to lay the foundation to get the tapes into the evidence. they're listening to it saying this is my voice. this is a tape of me during a conversation i had, and the jury

is going to hear it momentarily. >> donald trump has been on the campaign trail. two stops yesterday and for the first time since the january 6th attack, trump is detailing the conversation he had with secret service agents while sitting in the back of the presidential suv. this was after his speech on january 6th, and as the crowds began pushing toward the capital, at a rally in wisconsin last night, trump slammed the much talked about account from former white house aide cassidy hutchinson, alleging that he had lunged for the wheel of the car, and physically struggled with agents when they refused to let him join the crowd. here's what he said. >> remember the person that said i attacked a secret service agent in the car, i'm a lover, not a fighter. i sat in the back, and you know what i did say, i said i would like to go down there because i see a lot of people walking down. and they said, sir, it would be better if you don't. whatever you guys think is fine.

that was the whole tone of the conversation. >> back with me now, former white house press secretary sarah matthews, chuck rosenberg as well. you did testify before the january 6th committee and you also resigned your white house position after what happened that day. but i wonder what goes through your mind when you hear donald trump's transcription and his dismissal of cassidy hutchinson? >> i found it interesting the way he laid out the conversation. he found it calm and reasonable, which i can't imagine is how the conversation went. but look, cassidy hutchinson has said this is the only part of her testimony that she heard secondhand. everything else that she testified to, she was firsthand for. and so i think it's really interesting, then, when maga world decides to seize on her testimony. this is the portion of her testimony that they scrutinized. and she has been forth coming and said this was heard

secondhand. so i believe cassidy. i believe that this is truthful. she's been nothing but honest and transparent in her testimony, and i think that she's extremely courageous for coming forward and going through everything that she has been put through, whether that's safety concerns and harassment and things of that nature. and so i do find it really interesting, though, that donald trump seems to kind of have this obsession with this part of her testimony, and he doesn't push back on any of the other claims that she made. >> chuck, let me take you out of this trial today very briefly. does trump's account here maybe help special counsel jack smith get to the point that trump not only asks the crowd to march on the capital, he wanted it to happen so much that he wanted to be there? >> yeah, it might help marginally, although, if you read the smith indictment of the events on january 6th, there's a lot of evidence assuming it's admissible.

what you just described, chris, will be a small part of it. i just want to follow up on something sarah said. first, i agree that critics of ms. hutchinson who was brave to testify and in my view, extraordinarily truthful only pick out things that benefit their side, and sort of ignore everything else. but my sense of this particular piece of testimony is that ms. hutchinson can be truthful and wrong. person a tells person b something, and person b tells cassidy hutchinson, and cassidy hutchinson testifies truthfully to what person b told her. that's fine. it wouldn't be admissible in a court of law because there's probably too many hearsay levels to make it reliable. but almost anything flies in a congressional hearing room, and so my guess is, chris, she was probably completely truthful. and perhaps wrong about this one

fact. >> chuck rosenberg, sarah matthews, duncan lovin, thank you all so much. that's going to do it this hour. our coverage continues with "katy tur reports" next. aty tur. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. (ella) fashion moves fast. ta(jen) a healthcare provider so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. my mental health was better. but uncontrollable movements called td, tardive dyskinesia, started disrupting my day.

td felt embarrassing. i felt like disconnecting. i asked my doctor about treating my td, and learned about ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪ ingrezza is clinically proven for reducing td. most people saw results in just two weeks. people taking ingrezza can stay on most mental health meds. only number-one prescribed ingrezza has simple dosing for td: always one pill, once daily. ingrezza can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have thoughts of suicide. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including angioedema, potential heart rhythm problems, and abnormal movements. report fevers, stiff muscles, or problems thinking as these may be life threatening. sleepiness is the most common side effect. take control by asking your doctor about ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪ ♪ that colonoscopy for getting screened ♪ ♪ is why i'm delaying ♪ ♪ i heard i had a choice ♪

♪ i know the name, that's what i'm saying ♪ -cologuard®? -cologuard. cologuard! -screen for colon cancer. -at home, like you want. -you the man! -actually, he's a box. 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 cologuard. ♪ i did it my way ♪ (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) so we partner with verizon ask your provider for cologuard. to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. 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.

it's a beautiful... ...we can use l...day to fly. . wooooo! good to be with you. i'm katy tur. frantic, pants on fire, all consuming, those words are how stormy