it is good to be back with you for this second hour of "chris jansing reports." shoring up testimony after the defense tried to pick it apart with a lunch break in donald trump's hush money trial. almost over, and the jury is set to get back in roughly 15 minutes. the prosecution will continue its redirect with the witness who has laid the ground work for the entire prosecution case. former "national enquirer" ceo david pecker. the defense spent hours trying to trip him up, catch him in contradictions, even introducing several instances where they say pecker's recollection of key events had changed over time. but the prosecution got the last word before lunch, getting pecker to admit that karen

mcdougal's story would have been "national enquirer" gold, and his decision not to run it was purely to help donald trump. joining me now, nbc's vaughn hillyard outside the courthouse, former federal prosecutor paul butler is back with me. former assistant new york attorney general tristan snell is in studio, and jeremy soland, criminal defense attorney and former manhattan prosecutor. i'm going to start with you because you're a defense attorney and you're new to this table. it's a challenge, right, no matter how many times the defense keeps going back and back and back to david pecker, trying to show this wasn't about the campaign, which is what you did, this is standard operating procedure, they said that over and over and over again yesterday. let me give you one of the later pieces of back and forth, and this is steinglass trying to, again, disprove that bove had just done, the defense attorney.

how many, meaning of these stories, did you coordinate with a presidential candidate for the benefit of a campaign. . it's the only one. in this case, did you suppress stories to help a presidential candidate, pecker, yes. how do you think the defense is doing when that's what they're faced with? >> i think they did score some points. it's the only president, that's for certain, but we heard about arnold schwarzenegger, for example, so it wasn't the first time this has happened. we heard about this other times before. in fact, there was a relationship starting in 1998 with the former president who then was not the president. i think the defense did score some points but not as much as they think because pecker came across as a pretty reasonable, regular guy, maybe there was some mistakes in his memory, but not some malicious ill-willed person. i think they scored points but not as much as they would like to have. >> let me go back to vaughn hillyard. get us a recap of the highlights of the day, and we'll talk about them on the other side. look, this is what happens in trials, right?

the prosecution tries to shore up the testimony. the defense tries to knock it down. that's exactly how it goes in every trial. but in this trial, what were some of the key moments that you saw? >> reporter: over the course of the three hours this morning of the cross-examination of david pecker, the team for donald trump was trying to hone in on questions around his own story. there was that january of 2017 meeting. i think it's the best example where david pecker, earlier this week, answering the prosecution's questions, testified he showed up in trump tower before he was sworn in as president, and he replaced the likes of sean spicer, reince priebus. james comey, and in conversation with donald trump, that he thanked him for, i should say donald trump thanked david pecker and ami for purchasing the rights of dino the doorman's story as well as karen

mcdougal's story, and that was what was testified by david pecker just this week. but then when donald trump's defense team had the opportunity to cross examine him this morning, well, then why did you tell federal prosecutors in july of 2018 that you did not recall donald trump thanking you for purchasing the rights to those two stories, and david pecker said i'm not sure why the transcript read that way. all i can tell you now is that i recall him thanking me, and this is part of the defense team's efforts to call into question not only the veracity of that story that david pecker was sharing but generally his memory about events that took place now almost nine years ago. almost eight years ago, almost seven years ago in just that one example was a key to them, at least in the jury's mind of having them question the veracity of his retelling or at least what he recalled, versus kwhaerms testify today when -- what he testified today when

answering the prosecution's questions. >> this $150,000 that went to karen mcdougal, we're not talking about hush money. she was on the cover of a couple of magazines. she had ghost written a couple of columns that were in magazines, published by ami, the publisher of "national enquirer," but on redirect, the prosecution asked this, quote, is that true, mr. pecker, was that your purpose in locking up the karen mcdougal story, to influence the election? again, yes. is that the advantage of the prosecution being able to prep a witness? is that good witness preparation or is it maybe that, but also just that's the truth as he sees it? >> i mean, you can always say that it was coaching, of course. but i think the thing is there's also a common sense element to this. $150,000 for a couple of covers and ghost writing some columns,

you know, a column, that's usually about, you know, $300. i hope somebody actually points that out that, like, you don't get paid $150,000 to write a magazine or newspaper column. you don't get anywhere near that, a few hundred bucks tops. less than that or sooer. -- zero. that was window dressing to make it look good. i do think there's a common sense element to this that's going to be difficult for the jury to get around. >> is he right, jeremy? because i'm looking at the look on your face, and you're nodding. >> that's spot on. why are they even pursuing mcdougal in the first place. there's a story that's prevented from becoming public. you don't leave your common sense at the courthouse foot steps. you go with it and leave with it. i think that's a fair statement. >> if we look forward, paul, pecker's testimony set up testimony from hope hicks, very close to donald trump.

left the administration on good terms. pecker says hope hicks, he says he discussed the mcdougal agreement with her, along with white house aide and arkansas governor, sarah huckabee sanders, this would have been in the spring of 2018, well after donald trump had taken office. what's the relevance, if any, as you see it, of the fact that this was happening after trump had been elected? >> yeah, so we know that hope hick was involved in these calls with trump and ami. she's going to be a super important witness because she doesn't have cohen's baggage, michael cohen's baggage. it's the opposite. hope hicks was team trump all the way during the period that's the subject of this indictment. so it makes her especially credible. she's going to be able to connect the hush money payments with trump's presidential

ambitions. that's what prosecution also needed david pecker to do. to link the catch and kill agreement to the campaign, and that's exactly what he did. so, again, the defense tried to attack pecker's credibility in order to testify. they didn't score big points, and they're not going to be able to go there with hope hicks. she's going to be a strong witness for the prosecution. >> you know, jeremy, before the break, defense spent a lot of time grilling david pecker about a non-prosecution agreement, the jurors learned an awful lot about catch and kill. on one hand, it's pretty straightforward, right? catch and kill is you find out that there's a story that you want to bury, you pay for it, and you make sure they sign an agreement that says nobody else ever gets this story, right, but there's also a lot of weeds to it, what was the nda, but basically on the face of it, do jurors get what's happening here from what you have heard so far?

>> i think so, and these nonprosecution agreements, these agreements to testify, they are not atypical. i think there was a line of attack about ami wanting to be sold. you had to clear this up because it wasn't cleared up. you were not going to get the money. it wasn't going to go to sale. that's why you do it. at the end of the day, it's relevant, that wasn't why. there was money that was going to be made. it's the little holes they're poking. does it build enough, i don't know as of yet. >> you keep talking, kristen, about common sense. i have had an opportunity to talk to jurors after the fact, and i think most people, and you guys can disagree with me, but i think most people i talked to, jurors take very seriously, and we heard that even in some of the cases in voir dire here, the juror said, i can be fair, right, and they take that into the jury room, most jurors feel

like, and especially, i would think, in a case like this, they have an awesome responsibility. so they look at the evidence. but how much is about the evidence and how much of it is about common sense, who's going to pay $150,000 for a couple of articles and a couple of covers of magazine, not to disparage the people who worked on those magazines, weren't exactly a-list magazines. >> even if they had been a-list magazines. anybody knows exactly what a publication is paying. it's not that. there are too many 0's on that number, let's put it that way. you weigh the evidence. the common sense is what turns the evidence into a narrative and the narrative is what determines how the jury is going to come out. they're going to construct a story. the common sense is sort of the connective tissue that allows that juror to come up with that narrative in the juror's own mind as to what this case is

about. >> vaughn hillyard, as we're waiting for donald trump to reenter the courtroom, and it can be in the next five minutes or so, we had just reported that joe biden in a radio interview today said that he was willing to debate. so of course, it didn't take long for donald trump to post on truth social. he said, crooked joe biden just announced that he's willing to debate. everyone knows he doesn't really mean it, but in case he does, i say anywhere, anytime, any place, the post went on to say that since biden is in new york city today, and i should say that we saw his motorcade going past 30 rock here, and like trump, who is quote stuck in one of the many court cases that he instigated as election interference against a political opponent, a continuing witch hunt, all of which has been disproved, should debate at the courthouse tonight on national television. i'll wait around. >> let me get, first your analysis of this.

no big surprise about donald trump. it looks like, could we see a debate? >> reporter: right. first of all, i don't expect that we have a friday night live rendition here in lower manhattan. it's a sleepy around these parts on friday evenings. donald trump is looking for a story line. as a general election candidate, he would love to debate joe biden. there's nothing precluding joe biden from agreeing to debate. donald trump has made this a case. he has brought on an empty podium to signify he's ready to debate joe biden whenever the current president would like to. there are three debates speaking of -- >> speaking of the man, you may not be able to see this, vaughn -- >> reporter: taking place in september and october. donald trump just walked in. i'm making note of the fact you probably can't see it. he walked back into the courtroom. sorry i interrupted you. >> reporter: it's okay. usually those debates don't take place until september or

october, but this was notable because joe biden over the course of the last many months made the suggestion, let's see how he acts before we make a commitment to the debates, a long standing tradition to do. today in the howard stern interview, joe biden suggesting he would look to seek to debate donald trump at the appropriate time, and of course now trump utilizing that to say, well, let's do it now. >> i was just talking about the fact that, you know, i think jurors take their job very seriously, and paul butler, i'm wondering when they're told you can't read you, can't look up anything about this case. you can't go home and google who david pecker is or what a non-prosecution agreement is or any of that stuff, can they be following this part of it? can they be following the campaign part of it and still be legitimately following what judge told them? >> no, they're not supposed to

look at any news item regarding donald trump. it doesn't matter if it has to do with the campaign, and certainly not the trial. and in my experience, they do take that responsibility very seriously. >> so, guys, what are you looking for when we restart here? what can and should the defense do here before we finish with this witness? >> you know, as much holes as they can poke in him. i know he's mild mannered, coming across as a genuine guy. i know they can't get him on selling ami for extra money. there are inconsistencies. his agreement to testify, i think they're in a difficult spot. overall, pecker is a win, whether it's 100% win or 95% win for the prosecution. he set that foundation. he set the groundwork, we know what this is about, and now all of the spokes are going to come from him as we hear other witnesses. >> paul butler, thank you.

vaughn, tristan, you're going to stand by. the judge, how he's handled this unprecedented case so far and the ongoing attacks from the president. a retired judge who has known juan merchan for 15 years is going to join us after this. oin. is he? claritin clear? yeah. fast relief of your worst allergy symptoms, like nasal congestion. live claritin clear® nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. 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. we love being outside, but the sun makes our deck and patio too hot to enjoy. now thanks to our new sunsetter retractable awning, we can select full sun or instant shade in just 60 seconds. it's 20 degrees cooler under the sunsetter and we get instant protection

from harmful uv rays and sun glare. for pricing starting at less than $1,000, transform your outdoor living space into a shaded retreat your family will love! when you call, we'll rush you a special $200 discount certificate with your free awning idea kit! you'll get your sunsetter for as little as $799. but, this is a limited time offer! for over 20 years, sunsetter has been the bestselling retractable awning in america! call now for this free awning idea kit packed with great awning solutions that will let you enjoy your deck or patio much more often. plus, get this $200 discount certificate that will bring you your sunsetter for as little as $799. but this is a limited time offer. call now! sunsetters are backed with up to a 10-year limited warranty! more than 1 million families in america own and love their sunsetter. now, you too can discover why “life is better under a sunsetter...” it's like putting an extension on your home. and talk about options: choose motorized or manual

and for just a little extra, add led lighting for evening enjoyment. there are so many incredible styles to choose from in our free awning idea kit. get a custom-built awning, without the custom-built price! call now to get the whole sunsetter story. you'll get this free awning idea kit. plus, a $200 discount certificate and there's no obligation. with sunsetter, you'll create the ultimate outdoor living space. perfect for entertaining friends. call now for your free awning idea kit, with local dealer info and $200 discount certificate. “life is better under a sunsetter!”act now and save!

the judge in donald trump's hush money trial says he'll hold a hearing next thursday about

trump's alleged violations of the gag order. prosecutors say there are at least 14 violations, including four just this week, where trump referenced witnesses and the jury. take a listen. >> what did you think of david pecker's testimony so far. >> david has been very nice. nice guy. >> michael cohen was a liar, he got in trouble because of things outside of what he did for me. >> that jury was picked so fast, 95% democrats. >> are they going to look at all the lies cohen did in the last trial. >> he puts in an invoice or whatever, a bill, and they pay it and call it a legal expense. i got indicted for that. >> joining me now is retired judge and former new york state supreme court justice. she's also known the judge at the center of this case, juan merchan, for 15 years. let me start where we left off there. a lot of people want to know what's going to happen with the

fact that the prosecution is charging time after time donald trump has violated the gag order that judge juan merchan put in place. a lot of them have asked the question, why is he not ruling on this, what's he waiting for? you know him. you probably have some idea of how he works. do you have an answer for them? >> i don't have a precise answer, but i can tell you that obviously this trial is in a fish bowl. judge merchan's goal and job, quite frankly is to bring it to verdict. and there are certain things that are, you know, bumps along the way, and this is one of them. he also wants to take his time to make sure he makes the right decision. the legislature did not give this judge or any of us a whole lot of options with respect to contempt. you can hold someone in contempt by fining them which probably doesn't mean a whole lot to donald trump. or you can send them to jail for a short period of time. that's going to complicate this and slow things down to get to

the finish line. so while it appears there seems to be a series of violations by donald trump, certainly judge merchan is going to take his time to get it right and to keep this trial on track. >> you do make a good point. a thousand dollar fine to donald trump is not the same to a thousand dollar fine to most people in america. putting him in jail has implications far beyond what it would mean for a normal defendant who defied a judge's order. you have done more than a few high profile cases of your own. there is no higher profile case than what we're seeing right now. this is one for the history books. how does being a judge on a high profile case like this complicate matters or what does it mean for a judge who is facing this kind of scrutiny? >> that's exactly the right word, scrutiny, every decision, every move judge merchan makes is being talked about on national tv. that is hard when his goal and

his focus is to make sure the defendant gets the fair trial to which he is entitled. he needs to make sure he does everything the right way and to do the best he can to treat them as he would any other defendant. of course donald trump is not any other defendant. but at the same time, the whole panaplea of rights, just because he's the president of the united states, doesn't mean he's not subject to the rules of the court. the gag order is in place because donald trump has indicated that he can't seem to follow the rules. the gag order doesn't apply only to donald trump. those rules are part of our landscape, our judicial landscape for anyone who can't follow the rules. this is where we are, and i think judge merchan will make ultimately the right decision here. >> judges are human. >> thank you. >> in addition to that, look, if you feel that there's someone in

your courtroom who isn't following the proper procedure, isn't prepared, i could go on with the list, you can understand why sometimes you see judges get impatient. and we have seen that in this case. and one of our lawyers who has been in the courtroom says initially judge merchan was much more gentle with bove than he was with blanche, meaning, you know, todd blanche. his impatience increased as discussions continued but he definitely prefers bove to blanche. that's an observation. does that happen? you try to avoid it, maybe, but the fact is that the way they act, they way they present themselves, and their knowledge, what their arguments are can influence you? >> that's true. and i like the way you started this piece with judges are human. that's true. and it's also true that you get more bees with honey than vinegar and lawyers should take that to note.

>> so restrategize, if you see that something you're doing is pushing the judge in the wrong direction, don't keep doing it over and over again. >> yes and no. there are some lawyers who don't follow that rule. they will bait you. they want to be the person who gets in your face and makes you crazy. they think they win that way. >> with the jury? >> i think sometimes they think that. i speak to jurors. i've had, you know, a myriad of cases, hundreds of jurors i have spoken to over the years, and they do not care for that. they do respect the process. they are part of the process. they take their jobs very seriously. there are exceptions to every rule, but they do, and when they see someone manipulating the system, they don't like it. i would tell those lawyers to beware. >> we just had that conversation about how we believe that, you know, most jurors in covering trials, they do take their jobs extremely seriously. having said that, as a judge, when you watched jurors and their reaction, particularly to

what might be considered, if not a gotcha moment, a high interest moment in the trial, can you read them, do you think? >> i think i can read some of them, yes. there have been times now that i'm retired. i can say a judge will look at me when a lawyer does something outrageous, and roll their eyes, make a face, try not to respond, but yes, jurors are human too. at the end of the day, they do want to do the right thing. they do want to follow the rules. they don't want to go home and do research and break the rules that have been set down. some of them do, and when they do, we figure it out. we do the best we can to make sure if they're impartial, to get off the jury. >> when it was clear this trial was going to happen, i thought who would want to be the judge, honestly, i mean, again, the scrutiny, the pressure. how do you think it's going so far, and has there been a moment for you, maybe in particular

involving a decision by judge merchan, again, who you've known for 15 years, that is notable, as you follow the trial closely? >> i think the gag order is a big part of this case. and i think it's a big part of this case for probably all the right reasons and all the wrong reasons. we've heard donald trump get out on a soap box and say, i'm being treated unlike everybody else. and i have a first amendment right, and he does have a first amendment right. first amendment rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute. you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. you cannot incite a riot, and you cannot willfully violate the mandate of a court. merchan will come out the way we think he might, hold him responsible. keep in mind that holding donald trump responsible by finding him in contempt, that's under the judiciary law, not the penal

law, which means it's neither civil nor criminal. it's its own thing. but another judge, let's say a federal judge whose last name is chutkan may look at this and say, you have violated the rule that i told you you can't be found in contempt. that's a problem. if i were donald trump, i might be more careful. >> i'm going to get in trouble with my producer because i'm out of time, but i've seen the two of you listen so closely to the judge. do either of you have a question for you? >> you always listen closely whenever there's a judge. >> anything. >> i think she hit it spot on. judges are human. and a judge's job is to make sure justice is pursued, whatever that means at the end of the day, and in the case of juan merchan, he's not looking at this to get a gag order decision by tomorrow, that is sort of a side show within reason. it's important far more important is moving to a conclusion. >> he's not a judge trying to get a tv show where he can be the next judge judy. >> he would be terrific. he would be terrific.

>> jill konvisor, a judge and a diplomat. thank you for coming on the program. much appreciated. still ahead. we are going to go back to the courthouse for another update. first, some insight from what's happening behind the scenes at the manhattan d.a.'s office from two attorneys who worked there. stay with us, you're watching "chris jansing reports" only on msnbc. "chris jansing reports" only on msnbc. but ...he was getting picky we heard about the farmer's dog... and it was a complete transformation. his coat was so soft, he had amazing energy. he was a completely different dog. it's a no-brainer that (remi) should have the most nutritious and delicious food possible. i'm investing in my dog's health and happiness. (♪♪) the best way to solve a problem is to keep it from happening. (♪♪) at evernorth, we combine medical and pharmacy data

with behavioral health data to identify members in need of care. predicting and treating behavioral health issues quickly... while lowering costs for plan sponsors and members. at's wonder made possible. evernorth health services [coughing] copd isn't pretty. i'm out of breath, and often out of the picture. but this is my story. ( ♪♪ )

and with once-daily trelegy, it can still be beautiful. because with 3 medicines in 1 inhaler, trelegy keeps my airways open for a full 24 hours and prevents future flare-ups. trelegy also improves lung function, so i can breathe more freely all day and night. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ [laughing] ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for copd because breathing should be beautiful, all day and night. my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis held me back... now with skyrizi, i'm all in with clearer skin. ♪ things are getting clearer...♪ ( ♪♪ ) ♪ i feel free... ♪

♪ to bear my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ( ♪♪) with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and most people were clearer even at 5 years. skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions... ...and an increased risk of infections... ...or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms,... ...had a vaccine, or plan to. ♪ nothing and me go hand-in-hand, ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ now's the time,... ...ask your doctor about skyrizi,... ...the number one... ...dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis. learn how abbvie could help you save.

during testimony told at

donald trump's hush money trial. david pecker went into detail about how michael cohen was actually on the hunt for negative stories about his then boss. he described how at one point, cohen wanted to have access to some boxes that were at the "national enquirer" to make sure there was nothing in there that was damaging about trump. pecker says he wasn't going to let cohen go through them, testifying that there was no secret trove of information and that everything in those boxes was worthless. joining me now, nbc's dasha burns, senior executive editor, bloomberg opinion, msnbc political analyst, tim o'brien who wrote the book on trump, "trump nation the art of being the donald" during the height of his celebrity in 2005. tristan snell and jeremy soland are back with me. tim, i wonder what that anecdote that we just said about donald trump tells us about the atmosphere around him at the time? >> well, you know, i don't think donald trump fully trusts

anyone, and michael cohen was a lawyer but he essentially operated as a fixer within the trump organization. he wasn't somebody vetting contracts and as we know now from lots of reporting and court testimony, he was the point man for trump on paying hush money to bury any negative stories about alleged sexual affairs trump was having. it suggests to me that trump didn't fully trust david pecker, even though pecker describes himself as a friend of trump's. he describes trump as a mentor. it's always an interesting tell when someone describes donald trump as their mentor. there's a certain sort of, i think, class of folk who gravitate toward trump, and describing him as a mentor is one step even beyond that. but for everything that pecker has been testifying to this week about his proximity to trump, his close relationship to trump,

you know, that anecdote indicates to me that trump sent michael cohen into the "national enquirer" because he believed that pecker had over information that he wasn't disclosing, and he told michael cohen to find out what it was, but i'm just speculating. >> just to keep people up on what's happening, a redirect is over, recross is starting, redirect was weedsy. a lot of details we have gone over. i understand what you're saying, tim. on the other hand, i think if there's a surprise for some people in this so far with david pecker it happened just a little bit earlier today, right? because he's being i don't want to say hammered but he's being pushed quite a bit by donald trump's attorney to try to get him to say maybe my memory wasn't so good, to find some holes in his story, and they end that part of it before lunch with him really almost sounding defiant saying i have been truthful. the same guy who as you point

out said he considered him a mentor and a friend is not letting him shake that story. and i wonder what you make of that? >> well, i mean, it is trump's defense attorney, regardless of trump's feelings about pecker or the nature of their relationship, the goal of trump's attorneys to undermine pecker's credibility of the witness. he has been a very strong witness for the prosecution. the prosecution is trying to prove a number of things here, one that, there was a conspiracy to both cover up these stories, make payments for them, and thereby, you know, essentially illegally influence the election. and that pecker and trump and michael cohen were all knowing participants as possibly others were, and that came through very powerfully in pecker's testimony this week, so trump's team goal now is to say david pecker is an unreliable narrator, and his memory is foggy, and these are

first person accounts and he may not have the fact pattern entirely clear in his own mind. juries should take everything he says with at least a grain of salt and maybe a lot of suspicion. it's performance art to a certain extent. in this case, the fact pattern around the alleged conspiracy is very powerful and very damming. >> dasha, david pecker is one of many who have stayed loyal, obviously to donald trump in their own ways. his aid, boris epshteyn is in the courtroom even after being indicted in arizona for the fake elector scheme there. what more are we hearing from members of trump's inner circle right now? >> look, let's not forget that arizona is not the only state where there have been indictments in a fake elector scheme. you have folks indicted in michigan and in georgia and some of the same people are indicted in all three of those states, including rudy giuliani who just spoke out about this.

take a listen. >> what's the purpose of it? i mean, do you really think you're going to put us in jail if all of those places? like after my first 20 years in atlanta, i'm going to go to arizona, and then after my next 20 years, i'm going to go to michigan. no, the whole thing is to scare people so nobody will tell the truth and come to the aid and defense of an innocent man, donald trump. >> reporter: in the arizona case, trump is listed an unindicted coconspirator number one, but he's facing charges in fulton county, and federal charges in washington, d.c. related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election, chris. >> tim, rudy giuliani is maybe, i don't know, evidence number one in people who have been loyal. i got to tell you, i mean for the whole world, when 911 happened, right, it was an incredible shock. for people who lived here, it's hard to overstate what that felt

like. i can remember ashes settling on my window sill that came from ground zero, that was miles away. you could see the smoke for days and days and days. and this mayor, rudy giuliani, emerges, they called him america's mayor for a reason. what he represented to a lot of people who were in that state of shock was we can come out of this, right, on the other side, and now we see that here's somebody who seems to be completely broke, ridiculed widely, everything that he had built for such a long time. i asked this question of vaughn hillyard earlier, but what is it about donald trump, as someone who has studied him, written about him for so long, tim, that engenders this kind of loyalty? >> well, i think it's even more than that, chris. the rudy giuliani who existed

before in post 9/11 aren't that different from one another. i think he reached into his soul and became a larger and better person in response to the 9/11 attacks. i was in new york at the time, you could smell the smoke on the street for weeks. you know, he went on "saturday night live," and he told america it was okay to laugh again. he really was a different person in that moment. rudy giuliani, who was u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york was a very zealous prosecutor. a number of his cases fell apart because he pushed the limits of a law, and some of them, particularly his white collar wall street cases, he is a tough, aggressive person. he has always been that person. i think in trump's orbit, the people who come into there have their own, i think, instincts to grift, to bend the rules of the law. trump spots that in people, and surrounds himself with a group

of people willing to do that. michael cohen, rudy giuliani, or david pecker, we could go on and on down the list. what they all end up finding ultimately is it's a one way street in terms of loyalty. trump doesn't usually head out of his way to support them once trouble arrives. >> the other thing you can't ignore is he has been completely unapologetic about catch and kill, the way checkbook journalism and i don't like to say that because it's not journalism, but the way his newspaper, whatever you want to call it operated, but is it crucial in some ways to the prosecution case that this is someone who is loyal to donald trump, and yet he's telling you the truth? >> i think that's exactly correct, chris, and i think we're going to see that with hope hicks as well. we have folks that have not entirely broken with donald trump. but to get to this other question you've been asking, i think a lot of it is fear. i think people are scared of parting ways with donald trump. i think there's a lot of folks

who would like to part ways with donald trump but they're scared of the consequences because it's well known, he will threaten people all the time who will say, you know, basically he'll say look, if you ever turn against me, i will destroy you. it's a common thing he says to people, it's a well known thing. i think there's a lot of people who would break with him but are scared to do so. pecker and hicks have been folks who have been managed to carefully walk the tight rope between telling the truth in these cases and getting to a place where donald trump actually turns his bazooka on them. and i do think, though, that being in that position does give them credibility in front of the jury. >> we have heard trump referred to repeatedly as the boss by david pecker in some of the transcripts we have seen. and cohen saying the boss will handle this or the boss will take care of this. how does that play into this trial? the people are calling rhona

graff. >> that's a good one. >> what is that reaction for? >> so for folks who may not know, really there's a handful of people. the trump organization is a small thing. we learned about this in our investigation of trump university, the inner circle for trump is very very small. and it's really at the time of a lot of this happening, it consisted of michael cohen, allen weisselberg, ronan graph, only a few other people really in his inner circle for trump org sitting at trump tower. rhona has been his assistant for decades. >> since 1987. and she has been described as the gate keeper, as hi right hand. she appeared on some episodes of the apprentice. she got, in fact, a little bit of, you know, name recognition because people would actually call trump tower looking for her. tim o'brien, what can you tell

us about rhona graff? >> there's much more here than simply rhona graff was in the inner circle with donald trump. donald trump doesn't use e-mail, and all e-mail that was sent into the trump organization was screened by rhona graff. rhona graff's hard drive at the trump organization is a gold mine of information about the comings and goings on a daily basis of the trump organization. you know, they've always famously said donald trump doesn't leave a paper trail behind himself, which makes it difficult for prosecution to keep up with what he was doing. the reality is there's a massive paper trail surrounding rhona graff, and perhaps the manhattan d.a. already subpoenaed her hard drive and has looked through it. but, you know, she is the sort of communication equivalent of allen weisselberg who is the financial crypt keeper at the trump organization. she's a very material witness, and i imagine there's very hard

documentation behind any fact pattern, they may allege when they question her. >> i know you have to go, tim, i have to ask the last question. if there was one question that goes to the heart of her knowledge, what might it be. >> how often did mr. trump communicate with other women who were not his wife. how often did he discuss paying them to stay quiet, and how often did any of the e-mails you had in your possession discuss impact on his process as a presidential candidate in 2016. >> tim o'brien, your knowledge of donald trump is vast. and so useful to today. thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. i'm going to go back to you guys, so here is someone. the keeper of the information. it is famous, in fact, maggie haberman who follows donald trump closely, and knows him says in the past couple of months, i think, he started to text. he does not e-mail.

again, this whole idea of a paper trail, there is almost no paper trail, right that they can't come up with that rhona graff would have had? >> she is sort of the personification of the paper trail. >> that's exactly what i was going to say, rhona graff is the paper trail, the human paper trail for donald trump. >> you heard from david pecker, there was no formal agreement. donald trump at the time. she is that person. she puts people in the oval office potentially. she puts people in private meetings. she is that paper trail, the personification, absolutely. >> the last part of what tim said, what's the one question, and he gave us three, one was about how many women maybe that there was communication about, how many did, you know, they want to keep quiet, but the last part is related to the prospect of the campaign, and that really is the heart of this, right? >> that is, and some of that may not be admissible, how many other women, there's issues about tainting that jury. >> and do they need it, really

is this. >> the prosecution wants to keep this tight. four corners of the indictment. four corners of the courtroom. now that we have david pecker who set that ground work and that frame work, she'll be the corroborator. >> susan hoffen jer is going to be lead the direct examination, the chief of the investigation division, and she is a woman, what do you make of that? do either of you know her or of her? >> i know her. she was a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney and a prosecutor again. she's well equipped to handle this. the fact that she's a woman, i don't know that we should read into that. more so on the defense, you want a woman or a man, i don't think that's here. this is a merit thing. you have top shelf attorneys at the d.a.'s office handling the case. >> one of the things i have to tell you, and this is breaking news is that she says she is

testifying today pursuant to a subpoena. when we were talking to a lot of lawyers going into this, they considered her to be not a likely witness. what kind of witness is she going to be pursuant to a subpoena? >> people think of a hostile witness. you have more to say about this than i do. yeah, i think that we could see some interesting information out of here. she isn't here in a way to bend over backwards to help the prosecution, let's just put it that way. i think it's going to be -- you're going to only be wanting to ask her questions to which you already know the answers, based on the things -- >> isn't that true as a lawyer, you never ask a question you don't know the answer to or not here, maybe. >> on direct, you usually want to ask an open-ended question and let the witness go. i would not expect to see that here as much. what do you think? >> i agree, and keep in mind, when someone is subpoenaed,

you're not subpoenaed to an office. she's subpoenaed to the trial, to court. she hasn't been prepped as you would a witness. it's almost as if she's a defense witness. you can't direct her unless a judge says she's hostile. you can't ask leading questions. you have to ask open ended questions. it's a difficult place to be for the other side if you're dealing with that witness. for the prosecution, they can't lead her down that path. they can't give her the answer before she answers. i want to go back to nbc's vaughn hillyard who's outside the courthouse. vaughn, she was the keeper of the e-mail, the keeper of his schedule. how has this gotten underway? >> reporter: right. david pecker also testified that it was rhona graff who allowed him into donald trump's office when he had the trump tower meetings following the 2016 election, and before he was formally sworn into the oval office. rhona graff, being paid for by

the trump organization. she retired from the trump organization in april of 2021, after 34 years of working for the company. she of course, we should note, is brought forward by the prosecution here. it is not clear the extent to the information she may be knowledgeable of. as you said it, she was the custodian of much of what was happening directly with donald trump, working in the capacity of executive assistant. she already noted that her office space changed over time. she was there for that entire period here. this is a moment here for the prosecution to note that she kept trump's calendar. she kept the contacts on outlook. she handled the e-mailing for him. donald trump wouldn't put words on to paper in so many ways himself. rhona graff was an essential figure inside of that office and somebody he relied on for the execution of much. of course a lot of these questions could come down to debates over, you know, invoices and the extent to which he kept

financial records, when checks were brought to him. a lot of those are questions we may be able to get answered from rhona graff. >> let me ask you about the approach to her on both sides. so she says that her lawyers are being paid for by donald trump, so how -- let me start with this, how would they have prepared her for this? >> they meaning the prosecution or the defense? >> how would her lawyers, who are being paid by donald trump, have prepared her for this? >> she's going to -- they're going to not want her to be too overly zealous. they don't want her to lose credibility that this is a cover up. >> she can't act like a hostile witness. >> she shouldn't be out of the gate, unless it gets bad. you lose control of your witnesses sometimes, but they're going over her time and time again to stay calm, and not look like you're in a conspiracy. that's the theme of the case, there's a conspiracy, to impact the election through these

payments and the falsification of records, but the prosecution is going to continuously hit on and follow up from early that donald trump is the one who looked over everything, signed everything, it wasn't some other person. it wasn't his kids. it wasn't weisselberg who signed the check, it was donald trump, and, yes, these people were at meetings with donald trump. she is the nexus, the person who connects them all. >> i want to bring in former assistant d.a. at the manhattan office. listen, on the other side of this, how do you approach a witness, and i'm sure you have been in this situation, who is there under subpoena? is close to the defendant, very very close, over a period of decades. >> you know, it can be a very powerful witness if you do it correctly. this is not a witness who in any way is there voluntarily, trying to help out the prosecution. if the prosecution gets positive evidence from her, that evidence is extremely credible.

the key is to just direct ones questions as you were saying earlier, answers that you know, but even more than that answers that you can prove so there's no room for the witness to meander outside of the lines. that's probably what they're intending to do. they have a full sense of what they want to get out of her. they're not going to give her wiggle room because they have other proof of what they want. this is a way to get color and weight and make the story compelling for the jury. >> maybe this backs up what you're saying. i want to tell you what's happening inside the courtroom right now. there's a series of questions that they're moving through very very quickly. again, something that we already knew, did mr. trump use e-mail while you were at the trump organization. not that i recall. they put a number of things into exhibits from a thumb drive, asking if these were indeed some contacts, were they some e-mails that involved stormy daniels, karen mcdougal's e-mails from

back in january of 2017. directing your attention to e-mails you sent and received, yes, when it was from donald trump's assistant at the white house. the fact that she is moving very quickly, that she seems to know how to set this up, is that in line with what you were talking about before? you want to keep these questions pointed. you want to keep them direct. you want to keep this thing moving? >> absolutely. and you want to give a face, to a certain extent, even if what you're doing is admitting documents, you're giving a face to that. you're giving a face to somebody who's a trump loyalist. that in itself sends a message to the jury. whether this is somebody who came voluntarily or not, they have information and evidence that's useful for the prosecution, and that's good for your case ultimately. >> according to our folks inside the courtroom, graff is answering very matter of

factually. trump is, at least, to appearance, unfazed during this sitting in his usual pose. if anything, maybe that's an indication that both of them are listening to the lawyers. >> he's awake. he's finally awake. he might be unfazed so far, but he's not going to get his afternoon nap. >> the reality is he knows the answers before they're being asked. he's working with the defense. she knows what's going on. she knows what to say and whatnot to say. i wouldn't be shocked if you don't hear a lot of i don't recalls, i don't know, i don't remember. she doesn't want to, if she's the defense witness, she doesn't want to corroborate and set the stage for anybody else. she wants to give as little as she can, she does not want to be a trump, and go off on a tirade and offer more and open a door. >> they are showing things on the screen. karen mcdougal's phone numbers, physical addresses, e-mails

inside the inner circling of donald trump. >> check off boxes that corroborate, corroborate, corroborate. you're checking it off. that's what she's there if. >> it could be that this ends up not being super interesting. she's so close to him and the keys to the kingdom when it comes to communications. however, it could be that it's important to the case for the corroboration, for the authentication of records which are going to be admitted and discussed in great detail with the other witnesses but we're not really going to be talking to her so much except to say this material is the material that we're saying it is. >> so then will they take that material, rebecca, and perhaps use it another time? and again, we don't know where this is going. we don't know how long it's going to go on. if she just says, yes, i recognize this, yes, this is something that came through my office, that just sets it up to be used with another witness

later on. >> absolutely. it could be used with another witness. now it could be used in the summations. the prosecution is checking off boxes on each element of the crime that they need to prove, and so we may not be privy. the jury may not be privy at this point to what exactly this goes to. but ultimately all of these loose ends will be tied back together by the attorneys or some other witness. >> she also says she did stormy daniels in the reception area at trump tower. did you know she was an adult film actress? well, yes, i did. one might ask the question how she knew that. we'll see if that -- >> or when she knew it. >> talk about that's important. when she knew it. >> absolutely. it's important. absolutely. i even want to be a little bit more general here. you can see the summation of the prosecution and defense. we'll go back to david pecker,

there was no written agreement. the prosecution's response would be you knew that because you heard from rhona graff who said he didn't keep these types of records. there's your answer. when they're poking holes, now we have that answer. that's why she's such an important witness. >> even though they are supposed to set aside your feelings about donald trump, when you hear this stuff, and maybe many of the jurors already knew it, but karen mcdougal has said in the past, she's described trump tower, his apartments. we know stormy daniels was in trump tower. does that contribute to potentially jurors views of him or reinforcing something they thought they could put aside? >> it adds more color to the story and to the narrative. it's by itself not that big of a fact, again, it kind of gets into the common sense connective tissue i was talking about earlier, when each juror is

constructing their narrative of the case, this is a little detail that could end up being one of the sort of bricks in that foundation. >> again, did you see stormy in the reception area? a vague recollection, but yes, she knew that he was. go ahead. >> it goes to show you, despite what you're hearing all the time, this is not only about michael cohen. it's not about his agenda. it's not about his anger. it's about a case, and you have a person here, a person here, evidence here, this is just part of that puzzle, and that's why the prosecution has to do this now. >> at the end of week one, the puzzle is coming together. pieces are in place. thank you. that's going to do it for us this hour. make sure to join us for "chris jansing reports" every weekday 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. our coverage continues with "katy tur reports" right