good morning, it is 10:00 eastern. thanks so much for being with

us. i'm ana cabrera along with josé diaz-balart reporting from new york with our special coverage. stormy daniels back on the stand this morning in donald trump's hush money trial facing additional cross examination right now from trump's attorney about her allegation of a sexual encounter with trump and a subsequent cover-up. >> nbc's yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse, and here with us for the morning, charles coleman, civil rights attorney and msnbc legal analyst, and teb die owe agone da williams, former senior investigative council for the house january 6th commission. take us inside that courtroom. what's happening right now? >> reporter: already pretty contentious to say the least. it seems as if stormy daniels is much more prepared this morning than she was tuesday at the start of her testimony, especially when it came to cross examination with susan necheles. it seemed as if it was as contentious as it was the first go-around. susan necheles asking repeatedly

was this just about money, i'm paraphrasing here, and stormy daniels repeatedly saying, no, no i was not. stormy daniels wearing a green dress this morning with a black sweater going down to the floor, her hair is down, seeming more relaxed according to to some of our reporters that are inside the courtroom. there is a back and forth going on when it comes to for instance. the lead up to the payout of the $130,000, and susan necheles brings up this moment in which it seems as if stormy daniels was angry, quote, unquote, furious as susan necheles puts it about the fact that the money had not been paid out. the negotiated payout had not been cemented as of yet, and we now know the former president was trying to delay that hoping he would either win and/or lose the election, would not have to necessarily pay out this $130,000 toward stormy daniels. susan necheles said weren't you furious, weren't you angry, weren't you calling keith

davidson names. what are you talking about? i'd like to see this evidence. let me read for you some of what they played for the court, a conversation between keith davidson and michael cohen about this, guys. there are some expletives there, so i'm going to skip some words. i just didn't want you to get caught off guard, and i wanted to let you know what was going on behind the scenes and i would not be the least bit surprised if you see in the next couple of days that gina rodriguez's boyfriend -- gina rodriguez is stormy daniels's agent at the time, goes out in the media and tells the story that stormy daniels in the weeks prior to the election was basically yelling and screaming and calling me a p word, and you can guess what that word is. michael cohen says can i ask you the question. no, no, hold on a second, i wouldn't be surprised if she comes out and says stormy daniels wanted this money more than you can ever imagine. i remember hearing her on the phone saying you blanking keith davidson, you better settle this story because if he loses this

election -- and he's going to lose -- if he loses this election, we lose all leverage in this case, it's worth zero, and if that happens i'm going to sue you because you lost this opportunity. so settle this blanking case and then they go on because they bring up the nda, right? the settlement, the $130,000, and the point of which there's an exchange between necheles and stormy daniels. there's a lot to talk about here. there's a settlement agreement between two parties. you said a few things that will be agreed to prior to entering the agreement, there is confidential information relating to the defendant in this case, and daniels says yes. the next paragraph they're looking at, you say you have been damaged and you were going to have to release claims. i did this, stormy daniels says because my attorney suggested that i do. and then they go on. this is the parties agreeing it would be kept confidential, and you refer to it as an nda. yes, this is the confidentiality

agreement, right? daniels says yes -- this is getting, guys, we're going to see a lot more of this in the cross examination. they go on, this is getting at the credibility issues of stormy daniels. one thing i will note in some of this cross examination that we're seeing that i mentioned earlier on is she seems much more prepared. she is droning on less, giving kind of yes or no answers. listening to the questions from susan necheles. understanding that susan necheles might have some moments she's trying to bear out. there are some moments with susan necheles plans to bear out, play out for stormy daniels that could catch her off guard. she seems more prepared for many of these exchanges going into this. certainly going to be lots of fireworks today throughout this cross examination and then moving on to redirect. >> yasmin, stay with us as you continue to read this google document, we're going to keep our eyes on it as well. i do want to get your take,

charles, on how this cross examination today has begun. >> expected this is not something that is a surprise to me. i think that stormy daniels has been billed for a very long time as being one of the premier witnesses for the prosecution, so you should expect that she's going to garner a significant amount of attention from the defense in terms of attacking her credibility. for viewers who are listening and understanding what's going on it's important to understand two things can be true. you can make the case, if you will, that attacks stormy daniels credibility from a standpoint of she was attempting to extort donald trump or she was in this for money and it still have no impact on donald trump's guilt or innocence with respect to what he's charged with in this case. understand, donald trump is charged with falsifying business records for the purposes of concealing another crime, basically getting to interfering with an election. whether stormy daniels was trying to extort him for money during this process is virtually irrelevant in terms of his actual guilt or innocence, but

to the jury it would matter, and it could make her look very bad, and that's what they would like to do. >> okay, guys, let's get to real quick what's happening right now. about this credibility piece, right now nechles has questioned stormy daniels about some documents she signed that denied ever having an affair with donald trump. she asks, on january 30th -- this was 2018 -- they've entered into evidence a statement that stormy daniels signed and on january 30th, you again denied you ever had a sexual relationship with president trump. daniels, yes. i am denying this affair because it never happened. i will have no further comment. daniels, that's what it says. and that's what you signed, right? daniels, correct. >> daniels via keith davidson who was her attorney, i never spoke to michael cohen directly daniels says.

in 2018 president trump was denying this relationship, right? daniels, yes. necheles, and he wanted you to deny it as well, right? daniels, yes. necheles, he was already president, right? you understand trump has a brand, yes. you understood his concern about protecting his brand and he daukd taukd about creating an image that was successful, daniels yes. all these denials, temidayo is that going to be a problem for stormy daniels the fact that she initially denied having an affair with him? >> it's not good. if you're a defense lawyer what you're looking to do is create complexity and confusion. as charles said, a lot of things pointed out aren't relevant to the crime charged. the benefit you have is to say we can't parse this out, and that means you can find beyond a reasonable doubt. that's the goal here. it's not a target. it's to create the semblance of confusion and tell the jury the prosecutors don't know what

happened so how can you know what happened. that's why you should acquit. that's the goal here. >> bringing up issues that are not directly related to the crime that is alleged, right? that's what happened when she first took to the stand when we were learning about pajamas and colognes and geographic locations of hotel rooms. so this part of it where they're going after what specifically she signed onto and, therefore, stated when she one time just before that exchange on the different contracts and statements that she has made, one of them was do you -- is this your signature? she says i don't remember. she don't remember what you signed, but you remember the cologne. so what is the strategy here and what is more relevant to jurors? >> i think ultimately if you're thinking about juries, you want to make sure that this witness

who is important to the prosecution's case, if you're the defense is not likable and is not credible. so going to yasmin's point, it is not a surprise to me that she is essentially better prepared today to testify than she was previously and part of the reason for that is to answer your initial question, she has opened the door to a lot of different questions from the defense on her cross examination because of where she went in terms of her answers droning on during her direct. it's not a surprise to me that prosecutors likely sort of said, look, we need to reel you in or her attorney said, listen, let's keep these answers, shorter, sweeter and keep them pithy so she did not expose herself to expanded inquiries from the defense. now that that door is open, if you are donald trump's attorneys, you want to create a situation where you can say to the jury was she lying then when she signed the document, and you know, was closer to where it was that she was going to be and no one knew? or is she lying now that she's sort of this person who has this much to gain and wants to get money from donald trump.

either way, the point is you want the jury to say i don't know, which is reasonable doubt, which ultimately leads you to the place you need to be. >> well, and there's a little bit about her motivation that susan necheles is trying to get at with her and trying to get the jury to question, right? and we all know stormy daniels' story before she took the stand because of the interviews she's given over the last few years, and so i want to pick up with what's happening in this testimony where necheles, donald trump's attorney is asking her about giving a "60 minutes" interview, and necheles says you wanted to make more money? daniels, no, that's why "60 minutes" free. >> in that interview you told what happened with president trump. >> daniels, yes, i was not compensated. >> you got lot os of publicity. >> lots of bad publicity.

and then there was an objection and the judge sustains it. so necheles, michael avenatti was helping you get all this publicity, right? >> daniels, he did arrange to get on cnn and the view. everything else he took for himself. >> you were going to make lots of money and negotiate a book contract, $800,000. >> daniels, yes. >> in addition to the $130,000, a reference to what she was paid to keep quiet initially. >> daniels, i did not receive 130. i also didn't receive the $800,000. my commission was stolen from me. necheles. that is what you sold it for. >> the story starts when i am 2 years old. necheles. am i correct that the center piece of your book is about your story of supposedly having sex with president trump? >> daniels, sadly, i thought that's what a lot of people would turn to first. but it started with me at 2 years old. necheles, you believe people would buy the book just for that story? daniels, i don't know.

necheles, after you wrote the book, you went on tour. make america horny again. daniels, i did not name that tour, and i fought it tooth and nail. temidayo, your take? >> thinking about how i think about cross examination, the danger here is that someone on the stand can flip from villain to hero if you're too aggressive on cross examination, and that's a danger here is that, you know, she had some challenges, stormy daniels, when she was on direct examination, but i think if trump's lawyers go after her too aggressively trying to beat her up. trying to shame her. trying to attack her in this kind of tone they're doing now, the jury may start to find her sympathetic, and all of a sudden those credibility points you have raised effectively start to become less what this is about, and i think that's the danger here. if they go down this route, were they really trying to tear stormy daniels down as a person, i don't know how they really use that when it comes down to closing arguments, which is what this all comes down. what is the argument they're going to make to the jury about why the elements here have not

met. if you stand up and say, ladies and gentlemen, stormy daniels wanted to make money off having sex with donald trump, the problem with that is that you're almost implicating, yes, she had sex with donald trump. it supports the prosecution's theme. >> i just want to continue with something that's going on in the courtroom right now. so after we learn that she went on tour to the make america horny again tour, necheles asked, you continued, however, to be at strip clubs on a strip club tour in 2018 and 2019. daniels, i continued doing my job, yes, dancing at clubs which i've done since 2001. >> you were selling yourself as someone who hated president trump and someone who would get president trump indicted, right? i was not selling myself to anyone. you said -- and this is again necheles to daniels. you said the white men who used to go to the club were gone, and now it's women, gay couples,

immigrants, and other associated liberals who despised trump. did you write that? is that true? daniels, the clients at the clubs absolutely changed. >> now, to temidayo's point, part of the reason susan necheles is doing this prosecution, is it would be bad to have a male attorney aggressively cross examining stormy daniels in this way. this is all very strategic. it is going -- she as a female attorney is going to enjoy a certain amount of leeway and a higher threshold for aggressive cross examination, which you need for a witness like this that his other attorney simply wouldn't because she's going to draw greater sympathy from the jury earlier on. in terms of the cross examination and where this is going, this is a problem that the prosecution has not only with stormy daniels but also with michael cohen in terms of the amount of information that they have already put out in the public for years because of their public appearances, the various amounts of public

interviews in different publications or different radio, tv stations that they've done. there's a treasure-trove of information and quotes about this incident that come from all of the prosecution's witnesses, but particularly for michael cohen and from stormy daniels, not so much from karen mcdougal. these are things they know they are going to have to contend with. >> many of those statements for money. >> absolutely. which also sort of again calls into question stormy daniels motives. what is it she's doing this for? what is she motivated by and his vitriol towards donald trump is something they will come back to as a theme and say, she was out to get him. she wanted to extort him. they was her money-making opportunity. donald trump was her cash cow. that's the theme they're going to sell the jury to discredit stormy daniels. the question is how effective it's going to be in the long run. >> let's go back into the courtroom and this document that's our reporting from the questioning.

necheles is asking stormy daniels you participated in making an nbc documentary about yourself, which aired on television just recently, right? >> daniels, yes necheles, and that involved several years of filming and interviews with you, right? daniels, yes. there was 17 people who shot footage for that including my husband and he stopped filming as soon as we started dating. necheles, you were paid $125,000 for the doc? daniels, no, i was not. i have not received all of it. they gave me 100,000. you would have to ask my attorney who is sitting right there. daniels goes on to say they gave me 100,000 for back footage, but i was not paid for an interview. a lot was footage, but i had to pay back cameramen, et cetera. daniels continues, you're trying to trick me into saying something that's not entirely true. necheles you're traveling all over the place to promote this film. necheles, you've been a hero at those parties to trump hates,

right, daniels, i don't know. necheles, didn't you say -- sorry, there's an issue. >> didn't you say people come up to you and they're so emotional and say you are going to save the world? daniels, you misconstrue that. i was quoting some women who came up necheles, you continue to make money selling a story that you promised would put president trump in jail. no. necheles, you continue to make money off it. daniels, show me where i said i would be instrumental in putting him in jail. so do you mean, temidayo that stormy daniels is handling herself well under this questioning, or what's your take on how she's doing? >> you know, i think she's perhaps not doing as well on the attacks. but the one thing for folks who have not been in trial or conducted a trial, the transcript does not always reflect what's happening. what i'll be very interested in is getting the firsthand account of those in the courtroom.

a lot of this combative cross examination you have to read the body language. does trump's lawyer look like an aggressor, stormy daniels is he looking like someone who's being beaten down? >> i have some color about that, one of our reporters writing that stormy daniels has positioned herself with her body towards the jury, but her face is directed at the lawyer who's asking the questions. necheles, and she's speaking very confidently with her glasses on. yasmin, you have more in terms of some of this interaction and what's happening inside? >> reporter: yeah, so, again, i think it's important to kind of understand the makeup of the court, right? stormy daniels is sitting very close to the jury, and on tuesday when i was inside that courtroom, she was playing to the jury a lot, especially during direct, and it wasn't necessarily playing well with the jury, and that was because it was more about kind of the makeup of the who she was, where she came from, what her story was about. here, though, especially during

cross examination on tuesday and today as well, stormy daniels seemed to be more playing the whistle-blower, which i think was playing more for the jury, playing well for the jury i would say, which i don't think is often the case during cross examination when they're going after witnesses like stormy daniels. however, it seemed to me on tuesday and what's coming across on the page for me today as well, during the cross examination as she's being repeatedly attacked and painted as what seems to be an opportunist, you're going after money. this is about money. you've got $100,000, right? this is about a film. you went on tour. you made a documentary. you did many interviews all based upon the night that you allegedly spent with donald trump, painting her as an opportunist. to a certain extent, the jury may take this to temidayo's point as her being attacked and her kind of standing up as defending herself against at one point one of the most powerful men in the country. if you can kind of understand the dynamics between these two individuals. one other thing i think is

important to understand amongst all of this, guys, is it really goes back to the documents, which i can't state enough but i keep saying, right? that they want to poke holes in stormy daniels' story about what happened in 2006. this detailed account about the night that they spent together that was then subsequently refuted by donald trump's tweet that they ended on with direct testimony on tuesday, but that is why the documents are the star witness in this entire cases and using donald trump's words against him as they did on tuesday morning is also some of the star testimony and exhibits that they will put into the court as evidence as star to this case. it really kind of builds the story outside of these kind of quote, unquote problematic witnesses like stormy daniels and potentially michael cohen. and so if you believe the story of 2006 or not, may not really be the question. and the question is really does the documents tell the story in and of itself for this jury and

they don't necessarily need to make a decision as to whether or not they believe everything that stormy daniels has to say. >> and i want to bring in a jury consultant alan tuerkheimer is us. great to see you, thank you. you know, for us that aren't on a daily basis used to seeing what goes on in a jury room, right? you see some of this testimony going on right now when donald trump's attorney is asking stormy daniels about statements she made about trump at different times, and there's a back and forth, and i want alan, your thoughts on what temidayo was saying about one thing is to read what's going on inside the jury and another is to be there and to see what the jury takes away from it. and i'll read some of what just has been said, but how does that difference manifest itself? >> it is important. now, i think that the substance of testimony certainly is

crucial, but as important or almost as important is the body language, is the reaction, what's the tone? is it consistent? how is the witness communicating? is the witness going beyond the scope? and jurors attach significance to all kinds of nonverbal communication. if a witness looks up in the air when they're answering a question, they might think that's deceptive or if they're starting to rock in their chair. in terms of the substance, jurors have made up their minds. i don't think that anything that's going to come across from here on in with her testimony is going to change anything. jurors are probably looking at their watches thinking can we move on and get the next witness. >> yasmin was talking about how the documents have really been the star of this trial so far while right now the defense is trying to use documents to their own favor. >> a tweet from stormy daniels in the past, it's a tweet from her where she actually re-tweeted someone calling her a human toilet, and then she responded with that re-tweet saying exactly, making me the

best person to flush the orange turd down. and so this has now been put into evidence. and necheles asked, that was referring to trump? daniels, it doesn't say that so it's up to your interpretation. daniels, i'm also not a toilet. she goes on to say if someone can make fun of me, i can make fun of them. necheles, what did you mean when you said orange turd. i absolutely meant mr. trump. necheles, why didn't you say that a minute ago? she asks for another exhibit to be pulled up. there's an objection and then there's a bench meeting. charles. >> so i think that all of this is just -- i mean, when you have a witness who's important to the prosecution's case the issues in front of the jury and put them out there. to alan's point, it's important to understand we are in week

two, week three. >> week four, including the jury selection. may have a grip on, this is particularly relevant for the defense because all they need is one, and that's what they're looking for. at some point they're playing as much as they can to the witnesses -- to the jurors that they believe are really on their side because all their goal is to do is to keep those jurors on their side in a way that they feel like can get them to deliberations and can get them to a hung jury. so this is not a question of i don't know how the whole jury is going. at this point, donald trump's defense team isn't worried about the whole jury. they've identified through body language, like alan was talking about, those jurors who they

believe really are locked in or at least on the fence enough that they are persuadable. >> and for exam pg, one of the issues that the defense is hitting at is motivation. so right now necheles is saying to stormy daniels, when president trump was indicted in this case, you celebrated on twitter and were pushing merchandise. she says i was thinking about him being indicted, yes. you have an online store where you sell merchandise? true. so then there is another evidence being presented and accepted with the quote, thank you to everyone for your support and love. i have so many messages coming in that i can't respond. necheles, is this first tweet? you said -- she says, what you were saying was that you were drinking champagne because you were celebrating, right? daniels, right. necheles, and you were selling your merchandise, right? that was me doing my job.

selling your merchandise? that is my job, yes. daniels, same exhibit, different page. another tweet of that same tweet that daniels said. you said new merchandise is now in the store celebrating a new indictment, correct? correct. again, a long list of ways, alan, to look at the possible motivation of this witness. >> right, and that's what the defense has to do. they want to get all this in. they want to add the sleaze element because the prosecution, they have a pretty straightforward case, and they're having some regrets i'm sure with how this has gone off the rails a little bit, but the defense wants some jurors to, as they said in their opening statement, even though this is about falsified records, they're saying these aren't serious charges. they shouldn't have been brought, and the more the levity is brought into the situation and the more there's extraneous information and distractions, it helps the defense. and to your point earlier that you just said, all they need is one. there's two lawyers on this jury. if one of the lawyers thinks --

i'm not saying this is going to happen -- might say something like i worked on a case once and these aren't the right changes for that or this isn't really what the intent is. that's going through the minds of the defendant, that's how they're trying to get this to the jury. i think at this point all this information coming out, the jurors are wanting to get the show on the road. >> let's go to vaughn hillyard who's standing by outside the courthouse who has some color right now on how trump is reacting to the stormy daniels tweets that are coming out in this testimony. vaughn, fill us in. >> reporter: right, we've talked throughout this trial about how often donald trump has had his eyes closed throughout these hours' long proceedings, morning to afternoon. on tuesday it was a different story. for the most part he was very attentive to what stormy daniels's testimony was, without

having his eyes closed for really much of the day. and so far this morning, we're seeing a very similar thing here. stormy daniels started off the morning much more poised and less combative, according to our lisa rubin there who was clearly after an afternoon on tuesday afternoon with susan necheles, the attorney for donald trump was going toe to toe with her, and she would respond with fire back. we saw this morning a little bit more of a deliberate stormy daniels. over the course of this first hour of testimony, she has become a little bit more belligerent, a little bit fighting back with those terse words and terse responses to susan necheles' questioning, and donald trump on the other hand is leaning forward according to our laura jarrett who has her eyes on him, leaning forward staring at the monitors because they're going exhibit by exhibit here at this point referencing multiple social media statements by stormy daniels over the years, and this is where for donald trump he is keenly aware

and has been frankly triggered by stormy daniels for years now, tweeting about her multiple times on social media. he has publicly on camera -- trying to come up with the right word, attacked her repeat lid over the course of the years. so for him he is very attuned to exactly how his defense team is going about their line of questioning about the voracity of her. unless he takes the stand and chooses to testify and face the prosecution, donald trump has no voice inside of the courtroom except for that of his attorneys and their ability to cross examine the witnesses who he has publicly outside of the courtroom but not under oath denied the allegations of. >> just a moment ago, the defense put up an exhibit of a photo of daniels online store with a candle titled stormy saint of indictments candle. necheles says to her, are you

saying you are the saint of the trump indictment? daniels, no. necheles, are you also selling team stormy merchandise making $40 each? she says, no, i was making about $7. also accepted into evidence at this time, a statement stormy merchandise example photo of her with a black shirt with team stormy #on hot pink logo. team stormy necheles asked, whoever is on my side, answers daniels. so your side means whoever is against president trump. and daniels not exclusively. daniels, keep in mind, i did not write this comic, so there's also the comic book aspect of it online. >> alan, you were talking about how sometimes the longer this goes on doesn't always work to the lawyers' advantages. i want to come back to something charles mentioned, which is that the prosecution as well as the defense probably looked at the jury, have been watching their body language, and have identified certain people who they want to connect with on a

deeper level. i'm just curious, you know, at this point they've been together for a few weeks these jurors sitting there listening, and are sort of in this all for one, one for all bucket. do you -- do you have any thoughts on how that's going to be a factor going into deliberations, and what at this point is maybe factoring into that pact forward? >> some of the way they interact is going to be a precursor to deliberations. just remember, the jurors cannot talk about the case. they can't talk about anything. they can't go afterwards -- they can with nonverbals or a nod probably communicate how they felt about stormy daniels, but they cannot talk about it. so on breaks, they're talking about their families, their jobs. they're getting to know each other really well. alliances are starting to form. they're becoming friends. they're bonding. the ways they communicate are taking root. when they start the deliberations, it's not as if there's 12 total strangers

getting to know each other. >> is it problematic that they have had a break in stormy daniels' testimony with the day off yesterday from court. so these jurors who are not sequestered went home to their families and were talking with friends, perhaps this testimony has come up in natural conversation since no one's really supposed to know who these jurors are, right, even their own family and friends. is that problematic? >> i think they appreciated the break. i suspect that they went home and tried to unwind and maybe move on, think about something other than stormy daniels and they're back at it again. i think it's okay. they didn't forget what they heard. even though it's not totally continuous, i think they're ready to pick up where they left off but appreciated not having to think about all this. >> and yasmin vossoughian back outside the courthouse, inside that courtroom, now they're talking about essentially breaking down exactly what stormy daniels' business empire looks like. >> yeah, and they're talking about other ways in which she's trying to make money and make

money specifically off this story. i'll kind of read the back and forth for you if i can for a moment. do you plan to continue selling your story? that's necheles, and daniels says i plan to do my job and fund my extraordinary legal bills. daniels says also on a tv show. you're making money by telling people you have the ability to communicate with ghosts and dead people. daniels says the idea is to make money on a show about the paranormal. you also claim you live in a house in new orleans. yes, the house has unexplained activity. i did an entire show, a lot of the activity. it was a lot of interesting and unexplained activity so i created an entire show. so much of the activity, a lot of the activity was completely debunked as a giant possum that was under the house, for instance. i think, you know, we're getting to the point i think that temidayo keeps bringing up, which is they have established to the jury -- whether or not the jury is going to bite --

that stormy daniels has credibility issues. that stormy daniels is out to make money. if you remember during tuesday's testimony at one point, stormy daniels kind of jokingly said but quite honestly said doesn't everybody want to make more money? don't we all want to figure out ways to make more money? and she points a lot of times to some of the mounting legal bills that are happening because of, for instance, appearing today and some of the litigation she has had previously. the money that is owed right now to donald trump for defamation, which they talked repeatedly about during tuesday's testimony, and so i do think there is a risk that necheles is running with this approach in which the jury may grow tired of this kind of line that they are taking in that they're building this story of someone who is taking advantage of a situation and turning it into really a money-making situation. has the jury already gotten the point and is it time to move on to your next plan of attack in that's really kind of what i'm thinking right now as i'm

reading through some of what's going on in that courtroom, guys. >> okay, yasmin, thank you. please keep us posted. let's go back into the document right now as this cross examination of stormy daniels continues, susan necheles, trump's attorney continues to question her and question her credibility and her motivations, and she asks one about her experience with the paranormal, which she went into that yasmin was just discussing but then she's talking about the work she does. you've acted in more than 200 sex films. daniel, copulation, dan necheles says you have a lot of experience making phony stories about sex. daniels, that's not how i would put it. the sex in the films is very much real. just like what happened to me in that room. necheles, you memorize these fictional stories and repeat them. daniels, the scripts, not the

sex. pretty sure we all know how to do that. necheles, now there's a story you're telling about president trump. daniels, if that story was untrue i would have written it to be a lot better. daniels, i didn't have to write this one. i didn't make millions of dollars and i didn't write this story. temidayo, as this is continuing on, i'm starting to wonder like how much more do you need to try to poke at her credibility? it feels like we're revisiting a lot of the same territory throughout this cross examination, and could this in any way backfire on necheles? >> i think it could for sure backfire, and i think there are a couple of ways. first, the prosecution is going to have a chance to redirect, so they're going to get to ask her, stormy daniels additional questions, and if susan necheles opens a door to certain new item, the prosecution might tell the judge, you know, they're suggesting she didn't have sex with the former president.

we want to ask her more questions about the sex that night. we want to bring that back to the jury. we want to redirect. that's exactly where you went. the second point is that their additional evidence is going to be corroboration. they're attacking a lot of things. she's a porn star. she's this. at the end of the day, other people i suspect are going to substantiate that she at least knew donald trump and was with him in nevada around that time. i think the third point is the same thing you have with any problematic witness, you do as a prosecutor, which is i didn't choose this person. the defendant chose this person. that's the same way if you're a prosecutor we didn't choose michael cohen. he's a fixer because that's someone the defendant chose. same way here. you know, you're saying she's a porn star. she does this. she made 200 sex movies. guess who chose her. donald trump. we didn't choose her. so i think the danger when you attack someone this way and draw them down, there's a way in which placing them next to the

defendant, both of them are going to look dirty. >> it's important to understand i have always questioned why the defense -- and it likely is because of donald trump -- simply won't sort of concede this point that there was an illicit affair. i think that they have themselves strategically opened themselves up to this back and forth about whether stormy daniels is lying. i think there's more than enough to attack on stormy daniels' credibility without trying to question or draw into question whether stormy daniels is telling the truth. >> charles, but maybe -- so what happens if it didn't happen? i know it's -- >> it's not relevant. >> it doesn't become relevant. it's still not relevant. >> so let's say it didn't happen. >> he still paid $130,000. >> he's still guilty of what it is he's charged with. >> why then bring in the issue of the details of the sex when that isn't really what this is all about? the fact is that if you pay $130,000 for an nda, that is a

statement. that is unequivocal. >> sure. >> what you paid it for should not be necessarily relevant, correct? >> and normally, yes, but in this case it becomes relevant because the crime is that you were trying to ultimately influence the election. >> correct. >> otherwise you're absolutely right, it's not relevant, but that's the pairing of the indictment that alvin bragg brought. it's not just a falsified business records. it's not just that you paid the nda. it's the fact that you paid it in order to ultimately influence the election. >> but whether actually sex was included in that -- >> it's not relevant. >> that's what i'm trying to say. >> i think what could happen here is the worse stormy daniels looks, the more problematic it looks like what the campaign is scared of. they're suggesting this awful porn star and this and that. it substantiates the prosecution's point. if this had come out after that tape right before the election, imagine what this country would have thought about the presidential candidate. it makes it a lot worse for the

president. >> everybody stand by for a second, i do want to welcome elise jordan for the table. people are seeing you as we continue this discussion. let's go back into the document for a moment, and we'll bring you here into the conversation. necheles, susan necheles donald trump's attorney asking stormy daniels you gave a whole description of what president trump's hotel suite looked like. daniels, yes. black and white tile, you recall that? yes. you were supposed to include detail in your testimony. they said you were supposed to include detail in your testimony. daniels, there's nothing wrong with preparing a witness. i would hope that any attorney would do that. daniels, there's nothing wrong with detail. they are truthful facts. i don't need to match things to my book. necheles, you know there is no way to check on the details of what you said happened. daniels, right. 18 years ago you said the door was open a crack. daniels, he was standing right there. it had its own elevator. necheles, your story about what happened with you and president trump has changed over the

years. daniels, no. necheles. you said you met donald trump at a celebrity golf tournament at lake tahoe. daniels, yes. aaron rodgers, ben roethlisberger, many celebrities were there. daniels, yes, and the questioning is continuing. elise, there has been a lot of -- a lot of questions today about stormy daniels' story, whether it's changed over the years, whether she's been truthful about this affair as we were just discussing with the lawyers in many ways, whether or not the allegations about the affair or the sexual encounter are true are irrelevant when it comes to the crime, but we know it could have made a difference, right, politically for trump, and that is why the prosecutors are saying he wanted it covered up. what do you think that -- i mean, when you think back to

2016, is the story about stormy daniels that she's telling something that could have made a difference? >> i remember the night that the access hollywood tape broke, and i was spinning it here, and it was quite a flurry of activity, and it was crazy hearing in realtime donald trump and what he said about women, and it did seem initially, oh, is this the october surprise that's going to make a difference, but then jim comey had other ideas, and so you just never really know how something's going to hit in an election cycle, something that you think could be really, really big. who knows. i'm not going to second guess if this would have changed the course of the election necessarily. but for a lot of voters who are considering voting for -- voting for hillary clinton in 2016, i did hear in focus groups after the comey letter was introduced they hesitated and wavered and decided no the to cross that

boundary. and here today i think this trial is emblematic of the partisan, the polarization of everyone in america right now. everyone has fixed opinions of the two lead characters, donald trump, stormy daniels. very little of what he said or goes down at this trial is going to change the political landscape. >> i have to wonder, though, if all of these details being just brought up bubbling back to the surface now before another election where donald trump is a candidate. i mean, how does this, you know, detail that's coming out in the trial resonate with women who will be going to the polls in november? >> i think it's pretty baked in that donald trump is a scum bag when it comes to women and that is what it is. and it's not necessarily going to change how much worse is this than what was said on the access hollywood tape? how much worse is this than the names, the derogatory names he's called women? how much worse is this? some of the things he's said about his own daughter.

>> if it's not just the sex and you describe how he feels about women, this is about something else. this is about the fact that there was a lie to try and affect an election, an impact on an election. and i kind of bring it back to temidayo, your point about when a witness goes off off the rails, if you're the prosecution and kind of starts talking about things more than maybe they were supposed to for the prosecution's perspective. once this is out, how do you as a prosecution bring it back to what the focus of this is? because there is so much on the silk pajamas and the perfume and the other things, and yet, it is almost been two full days of things that are not related to the cream. >> crime.

>> the prosecution is going to challenge something i've heard a lot of people say, stormy daniels is the star witness. i think the prosecution is going to say no, she's not. this is all a side show. that's going to be the core of the argument. thinking of how the jury's positioned, we have now been in this trial for weeks, and i think we've seen a lot of stars already. david pecker, that first opening witness, that's a star witness. he came and provided an overarching narrative as to the entire scheme and really wasn't challenged extensively in cross examination. >> hope hicks. >> we've seen hope hicks establish the campaign's concern about this kind of evidence. i think we've had a lot of star witnesses already that have nothing to do with sex. that have nothing to do with stormy daniels, and that jury is hearing all of this after weeks of a lot of that testimony that's actually relevant, kind of effectively going unchallenged. yes, this is a -- a stormy day -- pun intended -- these couple of days. this happens at trials.

after this there are going to be more boring witnesses. there are going to be documents, witnesses again. there are going to be folks just kind of chugging along. we'll have michael cohen, that will be explosive. at the end of the cay, we're going to have closing argument. that's when this is really going to be put to the test. if you are trump's lawyers, what are you going to make of stormy daniels. when the prosecution gets up there and they show checks and they show documents and they talk about david pecker and talk about corroboration and they have this audio recording. if you get up there and the closing argument is the porn star is lying about whether or not they had sex, that's not going to be a persuasive argument to the jury. it's going to get you in trouble. >> and among the evidence, pictures including that one of donald trump and stormy daniels from the day at this golf tournament where he's wearing a yellow polo shirt right there and necheles is asking about this picture right now, in fact, she says the picture you took with president trump was one of dozens you took with celebrities, right? daniels, yes. necheles, and it was taken in a public place? daniels, right.

and there are no other photos of you two? daniels, right. necheles, keith is the one who asked you to dinner. remember keith is donald trump's body man. and daniels said he didn't say his name is keith. he said i work for mr. trump. necheles, and your testimony was eff no, you didn't want to do it, but you gave keith your number anyways. necheles, this is a totally different story than you told in 2011. daniels, no. necheles, you said 15 minutes. wasn't it more like an hour? and donald trump himself asked you to have dinner with him? necheles, didn't you tell in touch magazine that donald trump himself asked you to have dinner with him. daniels, i don't remember saying that. it was keith. necheles, am i correct you said to in touch that when you first met donald trump it was actually on the golf course and he came to talk to me and when you first met donald trump it was actually on the golf course? yes. daniels, yes. do you recall saying that to "in touch" magazine? daniels, yes. and he asked for my number and i

gave to it him. daniels, yes. in 2011, you said it was trump, not keith shiller who asked for your number. daniels, i didn't specify, and they were standing together. necheles, you said the first time i met him was on the golf course. he kept looking at me, and he asked for my number. daniels, it was always president trump and now there's a note and the clerk is reading back a question, but the reporters can't hear it because it's off the mic. daniels goes on to say they tried to get me not to mention other people when they asked me. keith was standing there he was always next to president trump. necheles, the reporter didn't want you to mention keith? daniels, it wasn't the reporter. it was my publicist. you mentioned keith's name but not in the first paragraph where you were only mentioning president trump. necheles, in the first paragraph you were only talking about president trump, right? daniels, it was all together. so again, they're talking about this interview that she gave "in touch" magazine back in 2011 where she was recounting the story of meeting donald trump and now she's told the jury that

it was his body man who asked for her number on behalf of president trump then -- well, former president trump, which they keep referring to him as president trump, his lawyers do, but now necheles is pointing fingers or trying to poke holes, right, and say you told one person it was donald trump and you told the other in the story that it was keith davidson. how much does this matter, charles? >> it depends and the answer it depends is how things ultimately are argued. if you're the defense, you want them to believe -- you want the jurors to believe that it matters a very great deal. if you're the prosecution, it's very, very much so not a problem, and the reason i say that is when you get to the point of summation to summation, you put your eggs in the basket of your documents, you put your eggs in the basket of your silent witnesses like david pecker and you can even say, look, let's put stormy daniels aside for a moment,

let's -- beyond the question of whether you believe they had sex, let's say maybe they did, maybe they didn't, we weren't in the room, we don't know what happened with that unfortunate magazine. but, at the end of the day, what we do know is what these documents said, what we do know is that we can point to this account that michael cohen set up, that this -- that the funds were transferred. we have all of this. we can follow the money, if you will, and the money trail says that these things were not documented for what it was they were spent for, and that this was all about the election. and that's what he's charged with. so, if you're the prosecution, you know, you're not necessarily worrying too much about this. there is one thing i can't help but to wonder, there was a bit for a moment of necheles going into conversation about stormy daniels' profession. i'm wondering about the calculus around what they're expecting the jury to react to, with someone who is engaged in the adult film industry. there may be people who are in favor of pornography, there may be people who are -- who find it

morally reprehensible. i'm curious about how she got to the point where she felt comfortable going that hard on stormy daniels for her cross examination. >> it sounded like she was trying to point out that stormy daniels is a storyteller. and that was kind of where she was going with it. >> and joining us now, former new york supreme court justice leslie snyder. thank you for being with us. i'm just wondering your thoughts as we continue to listen in to this testimony. >> well, my thoughts really go to the judge as a former judge. i'm thinking, he has so much on his mind. we're getting into the weeds and all the testimony and everyone here made such great points. i'm not going to go into that. i'm thinking the judge has so much on his mind, he's got a great temperament, he's doing a great job, he has to listen carefully to all the testimony, in case of objections because he has to rule fairly. meanwhile, he's got to also think about, i'm sure in the back of his mind is trump going to go out in the hall and do something which is going to

cause another contempt citation, is he going to have to incarcerate him, which ultimately seems fairly likely, and he's not going to want to do that because as a judge, the last thing you want to do is hold anyone in contempt because you control your courtroom and you don't ever want to have to use contempt if you don't have to. he's already had to use it so many times, because of donald trump. and he's got so many things on his mind that listening carefully, trying to be totally fair, which i think he has been, and then probably wondering to himself, as i am, how long is this going to go on? every little detail? does it really matter? well, they have to allow it. so i think the judge has a lot of challenges and he can't just totally get into the weeds the way the lawyers can, and the commentators can, because you have so many things on your mind. >> but there was a time, a couple days ago, where the judge did indicate he thought stormy daniels was getting into too many details, offering too much

information, particularly when it came to what happened in this hotel room and he said at one point, and i'm paraphrasing, like, we don't need to know what the floor looked like and so he is trying to keep it moving. >> he's sustained his own objections, which i've done many times, whether for the prosecution or the defense -- >> but explain why he would object. could that, you know, influence the jury? >> it is very simple. you are also thinking about your record at all times because you know if there is a conviction, it is going to be appealed, obviously. almost every conviction is. so he has to think about is this going to be something which is reversible and is it prejudicial? and frankly it got, in my opinion, a little ridiculous and sustaining his own objection was appropriate. and i think in terms of how much the jury heard, they had already heard so much that the fact that

he limited it might have come a lot sooner. >> i guess if you're trump's defense team, having stormy daniels on cross is a good thing for you. you can be bringing up every single possible contradiction that she said or wrote about in the many interviews that she's given, and you're talking about whether she speaks to dead people or just any kind of things that aren't exactly related to the alleged crime. is there no end to the defense's time on? >> there is no specific end and i think because the prosecution went into so much detail, the judge is giving them a tremendous latitude. i'm sure he's thinking, you know, as the lawyers have so ably pointed out on your show that it is getting a little bit ridiculous or at least it may backfire. that, i don't know.

but from the judge's perspective, he's going to let them go on for a long time because it is cross, it is a very important case, and the prosecution opened up a lot of doors. >> former new york supreme court justice leslie snyder, thank you so much for spending some time with us and offering your insights and your expertise. it is very helpful and we appreciate it. let's go back out to yasmin vossoughian outside the courthouse. get us back into what is happening inside in the courtroom at the moment. >> so they're trying to poke holes in the night that the former president and stormy daniels met. and allegedly had sex in that hotel room. during stormy daniels' testimony, she talked about how they didn't have dinner, she was invited up by keith schiller, via donald trump, and then as she got to the hotel room, she was in the hotel room for what she said was about three hours or so, in which she was not fed during that time period. and she thought they were going to go out to dinner, then order into the hotel room. this was her testimony that she gave during direct.

however, during this cross examination, susan necheles is trying to poke holes in the testimony by bringing up her former interviews, not only the interview she gave to "in touch" magazine, but the interview she gave to anderson cooper as well. let me walk you through the back and forth we're getting from necheles and daniels when it comes to that moment. so necheles says, you say i never got dinner and he lied to me and i held out so long i was starving. you said you had dinner with president trump while you had a conversation, daniels says i don't remember that. they're now being shown an exhibit from in touch magazine, daniels says i don't recall saying that about a particular passage related to the dinner. necheles says do you recall being asked again, so this was all being dinner, and you responded before dinner, before during, and after and daniels says it was during dinner time. we never went down to dinner. it was dinner, but we never got food. necheles says, you said this was all during dinner. and daniels says and all of these interviews i would have talked about the food, i'm a

very food motivated. then they move on, guys, to the 2018 interview given by -- given to anderson cooper for "60 minutes," many of us remember during that time. you don't recall what you said back in 2018? there is an objection, sustained by the judge. daniels is then shown this exhibit here, and daniels says i explained i never got to eat dinner, you're showing me one sentence of an entire conversation. so then daniels kind of gets into the fact that necheles is saying well, you gave a different version of this story than you gave in 2018 and also this in touch magazine and now daniels is kind of defending herself on the stand by saying, especially from this 2018 interview she gave to anderson cooper, our taking one snippet out of an entire conversation. let me just read this note, guys, if i can from lisa rubin, inside as well. and saying that necheles is trying to show the jury that stormy's story is not true by exposing kind of these inconsistencies, right, because

they want to get to the jury thinking, well, the story she told us in direct has so many holes in it that why would we even believe that stormy daniels went to that hotel room, that stormy daniels and donald trump allegedly had sex leading to that 130,000 and $420,000 payoff. >> this is continuing on this, and it is just -- i'm wondering, you were talking about what is baked in about trump for many people. any of this possibly adding to the baking formula? >> you know, it solidified, i don't know, it is more powdered sugar on top of the cake that is already there. it solidifies that donald trump behaves in a certain way, when it comes to women in his life, this is not new. this is something that his voters are unmoved by. it does matter their calculus

and the question as ana put it earlier, does it matter with that teeny sliver of independent women who are maybe voting about abortion, they maybe are concerned, does this help, you know, further that and to remind them that donald trump did set back their reproductive rights. >> and so, this picture that the defense is trying to paint, you know, we talk about the prosecution, and the importance of telling a story for the jury to really think about and to sit with, what is the story today for the defense? >> i'm not sure the defense knows the story. i think this cross going on and on feels a little bit all over the place, when you're talking about when she said dinner, did she actually have dinner or did she not have dinner? this feels a little bit unguided to me. i think the overarching hope here is to maintain different lines of argument. i don't think they have decided yet what they're going to say. i don't think they know are they going to say the sex did or did