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

not happen? initially i don't think they're going to say, they're going to know whether or not trump knew about this deal or not. they have gone all over the place. trump, the ceo, too high, doesn't know what's going on and then something else. i think they're undecided. as a defense lawyer, you do that at times. you don't have the burden of proof. the prosecution does. so when you stand up and close it, you're going to say, i don't even have to be here to stand up, the only person you have to hear from is them. if i did nothing and the judge would tell the jury and they didn't prove their case, my client needs to be acquitted and that's what the law requires, but i do think jurors as reasonable people expect a counternarrative that makes sense. they're here to bring the rational to judge and the prosecution put forward a documents heavy rational and this counterrational of attacking stormy and going on and on again and get morgue and more tangential is undermining their case. >> how much does the -- what she said in before cross, how much does what she said and the

different elements she brought up and the new avenues, how much does that determine how much the cross spends? >> well, i think it does in some respects influence where the defense goes on cross. but, keep in mind, because of the previous statements that she's made out of court, because of the interviews, because of the money and everything else that she's gotten, or at least sought to get from this, they were going to bring these thinks out regardless of whether the prosecution opened the door. that becomes for them a sincere question of relevance. i think that, you know, if you're the defense, it is a question of what you use to attack stormy daniels is going to be a reflection of how the prosecution seeks to inject her into their closing arguments. so, whatever it is they say, the defense is immediately going to pounce on from a place of credibility. but, the monkey wrench, if you will, that the prosecution can throw the defense is that they don't rely on stormy daniels

very much. in which case the lack of credibility that she has displayed, if you feel that way, as a juror, becomes less and less relevant because the prosecution isn't even basing their case on their arguments or getting where they need to go on her testimony. and that could be a problem for the defense because now you spent all this time hammering home on something that ultimately doesn't even matter. >> the fact that you just said hammering home, i keep thinking about donald trump watching this and seeing his attorney in action and the way she's -- to use charles' word, hammering stormy daniels. he's got to be happy about that, knowing the way he operates. >> well, he's not happy about the risk of jail being in the courtroom, but he's getting a ton of attention and he doesn't really care about -- whether positive or negative, donald trump doesn't really care. >> he also always talks about wanting people to defend him, to be fighters. >> exactly. for all the speculation that donald trump's defense team is

going to be weak, i don't know, they seem pretty strong to me that he's got, you know, he's going through so many lawyers, he's not going to be able to get good representation. so far, this has been, you know it seems like a pretty well matched defense against the prosecution. >> this particular team of attorneys are extremely experienced, susan necheles is a very experienced trial attorney and todd blanche is no lightweight by any stretch of the imagination. i think a lot of people looked at his defense attorneys in the civil trials with alina habba and some other people who may not have experience and thought he was bringing in the b team, it is clear that donald trump the candidate understands what is at stake and so donald trump the candidate was going to make sure that donald trump the defendant had all of the resources he could available to him and that brings me to a quick point, this narrative around stormy daniels benefits donald trump the candidate more than donald trump the defendant. the reason why is because stormy daniels is going to be painted as for donald trump the

candidate an agent of the state, who is colluded with the justice department, and alvin bragg and everyone else to lie and tell lie after lie after lie around getting money. trust and believe that donald trump's campaign is going to spin this in a way that takes all of these inconsistencies and lies and continues to push the narrative that, look, everyone is out to get me. >> so, right just a little while ago, necheleses asked, is this a good time to break? judge, no, i'd like to go a little bit longer. necheleses, you testified on direct that after a few hours you went to the bathroom. and when you came out he was in a shirt and boxers. daniels, yes. necheles, i want to get back to where trump was when you entered the suite room. do you recall? in your book, withdrawn. you say you came out of the bathroom, he was in a shirt and boxers, you said you became

faint, the room spun. i was shook, i was shook, surprised, she says. you acted and had sex in over 250 porn movies, 150 she responds. this is, again, already been talked about, already been mentioned, already been specified and yet the defense is going once again to repeat something that has already been confirmed. >> yeah. judge merchan is clear giving them a whole lot of rope. you have to be careful. it can be enough rope to hang yourself. that's maybe what is happening here. he's not cutting them off, but if i'm the trial team, i'm also looking at the time. it is 11:00. the jurors, when i was in trial, you think about when is lunch? these are the kind of things you think about with the jurors. they're getting hungry, they have been sitting there for hours, second day, they're thinking about their personal lives. i'm sure the reason she asked for a break is because susan necheles is thinking about herself this is going on a while and they want a break.

>> the key, and you brought this up earearlier, we're not seeing stormy daniels and what i mean by that is it is possible that part of why susan necheles is continuing this line of questioning is that she may feel like something about stormy daniels' demeanor is beginning to show agitation or irritation or something to the jury that she feels like she could capitalize. as trial attorneys, we know we're never going to get the law and order moment where someone stands up in a fit of rage and just, you know, acts up in front of the jury. but it doesn't take that. sometimes it takes a little bit of attitude, a little bit of annoyance or irritation or small snide remark that you don't now like this witness, and so it could be something about that. >> let's go back into the document right now, because here's where necheles has gone. you've acted and had sex in over 250 porn movies. we're going down this road again. yeah, necheles and there are

naked men and naked women having sex in those movies, necheles, and according to you seeing a men and t-shirt in boxers was so offending that you got light headed and nearly fainted. daniels, yes. it was mr. trump on the bed, an older man sitting there, i was not expecting him to be there. daniels, if i came out of the bathroom and it was not my husband but mr. trump instead, i would probably have that same reaction. daniels, this was definitely a power trip. necheles, you said you made him your bleep because you are powerful? daniels, i used to think so. necheles, because he was supposedly in a t-shirt and boxer shorts, you were so upset that he wanted to have sex with you that you couldn't speak up? and necheles continues, not the first time in your life someone made a pass at you. daniels, this was the first time that they had a bodyguard outside the door. and they were twice my age. and bigger than me. necheles, you testified that he got out of bed and stood between the door and he said i thought you thought we were getting

somewhere and you blacked out and the next thing you remember is you were having sex? daniels, yes. necheles, you later told a completely different story. daniels, no. i want to bring in kristen gibbons fedden, former prosecutor, now msnbc legal analyst and just want to get your reaction to where necheles is headed with this part of her cross examination, taking everybody back into that hotel room. >> well, i think it is a couple -- there is a couple of reasons why she's doing this. one, she wants to highlight all of the inconsistencies and what that does is it reinforces the narrative that stormy daniels is a liar, she is not to be believed. but i think the other issue, the other reason why she's doing this is because, yeah -- not yesterday, the day before, when stormy daniels was testifying, i think there was some feeling that there was this power imbalance. for years we're thinking this was consensual and even on the stand it made it seem like maybe it wasn't as consensual as it

was seen, which could put donald trump in a negative light, given the prior civil litigation where he was found to be liable for sexually abusing e. jean carroll. i think that it plays several roles, and even though that's not necessarily on the stand now, it certainly could be if donald trump takes the stand. so i think the secondary reason why she's doing this is to show there wasn't a power imbalance, this was inconsensual, if indeed it happened. i think the required reason why she's doing this is because she wants to highlight that stormy daniels is in the business of fabricating sexual encounters. that is the nature of what pornography is. it is a fabrication of a sexual encounter. and i think what she's doing is she's saying, that's your profession, that's what you're doing here, and that's what you did to donald trump, you fabricated a sexual encounter. and i think that feeds into the narrative of the witch-hunt that

kind of charles was talking about earlier, because if in fact she fabricated this sexual encounter, then it looks like donald trump is really the victim, you know, extortion or this really is a witch-hunt and that everyone is out to get him. i think that not only as charles pointed out, you know, is beneficial for him as a candidate, but i think it also plays into giving him as the defendant some empathy with the jury. it makes him look like he's the victim of extortion. i do think it really overlooks the broader context, right? because regardless of the voracity of her story, if stormy daniels is a liar or if she's telling the truth, the fact remains is that she possessed information that at that time could have damaged trump's candidacy for presidency. so, i think this line of questioning, while it really does a lot to undermine her credibility, i think it really misses the point because, you know, the overarching issue here

is whether or not donald trump falsified business records to hide that story, whether true or false. >> so, kristen, why would the prosecution then ask that level of questions with her when she was on direct? >> well, when you're presenting a case to the -- as one of your guests had pointed out, the prosecution still has to have a story to tell. and so they can't pick and choose what they want to say. they don't want to put stormy daniels on just to say, hey, this happened, hey, this is what i was paid, no, you have to present the witness as a full person. good, bad and ugly, i think the prosecution not only did that to tell a full and complete story, but they also did that, i think, because a lot of the direct examination that stormy daniels testified to didn't necessarily make her look like an ideal witness. and so, by doing that, the prosecutor was also making sure that the jury felt like they

were being authentic, because as a former prosecutor, i can tell you, that i could stand up in front of the jury at the end in the closing arguments and say, listen, i gave you the good, the bad and the ugly, these are the individuals that donald trump chose to surround himself with, these are the individuals that he picked, not the prosecution. and i gave you the full story. and here's what it really narrows down to. and then they'll go ahead and talk about she had that story to tell, and that donald trump didn't want her to tell that story and he went at all costs to make sure that story did not get out prior to his -- prior to the election. that's really what this boils down to. and that one of the things that he did to make sure that that story didn't come out was he falsified business records. and that's what it really boils down to. >> okay. >> the prosecution didn't get out the whole story and the defense did, which they had the opportunity to, it would look like the prosecution was hiding something, which could make the jury turn against them for that reason alone. >> and now looking at what is happening inside the courtroom,

this continued cross examination of stormy daniels by donald trump's attorney, necheles is asking her to read some passages from her book, also asking her about an interview she gave in in touch magazine, back in 2011, and necheles says, you didn't say anything about him standing to intouch magazine. daniels, he stood up and said come here, necheles, nothing about the trailer park, necheles, you made all this up, right, daniels, no. no drugs, blackout, daniels, i got light headed, i didn't black out. necheles, you said you were fascinated and stimulated. you said you had good banter and nice intelligent conversation. daniels on the conversation before going to the bathroom, the conversation was intelligent and interesting, i enjoyed it. necheles, you told mr. weisselberg it was no abuse and what happened with president trump and that you were not a victim. daniels, yes. and this is what you were saying in 2018, right? daniels, yes. necheles, and you said the worst that trump had done was break promises you never believed he

would fulfill. necheles continues, trump offered to buy you a condo in tampa and feature you as a contestant for "celebrity apprentice." you said the worst thing he did was not put you on "celebrity apprentice," right? i said the worst thing he did was lie. and then necheles continues, you didn't say anything about feeling faint. so, you know, what strikes me about this is this idea that she had -- maybe had some kind of intimidation by donald trump, kind of was presented during the direct testimony the other day and i had spoken -- we spoke with some other legal analysts who said that could be kind of a hairy area for the prosecution, because donald trump is not accused of sexual assault in this trial. those charges are much more serious. the fact that the defense is revisiting this with daniels and the fact that she never said that, you know, this was not anything other than a consensual

encounter is -- is this important for stormy daniels to clear up in her testimony right now? >> i think the concern for the defense is you do not want the jury thinking about your defendant being guilty of something that is not relevant. so this is a suggestion here that it was a consensual, that he overpowered her, you don't want that in their minds. the danger is that when you return and revisit this point, the jury has been home a day, they had a long day, a small part of on direct, now you're coming back and unpacking it further and you're saying, you know, you want her to say, tell us again, basically, he didn't do these things to you when he never said that, she -- there was an inference. i think the danger of the defense is that worth going back to this extensively? >> because the defense's clear intention is to show she is inconsistent, even in the small things or maybe in the bigger things. so that line of questioning, for example, about what is the worst

thing that trump did to you, she says the worst thing was that he lied. and then necheles continues to say, well, you said the worst thing he did was not put you on celebrity apprentice, right? i said the worst thing he did was to lie. you didn't say anything about feeling faint. daniels, mr. trump did not drug me. the worst thing he did was lie in that moment. you were asked, you took something that made you feel like you had to have sex with him? daniels, yes. now, necheles is going back to tuesday, she says, on tuesday, you said he made nasty comments and stood over you. daniels, i said he stood in front of me. necheles, these actions made you feel like you had to have sex with him? daniels, he did not give me drugs or alcohol. he did not have a weapon. it is this specific issue that

was brought up last tuesday. >> you know, we have to remember, this is a new york city jury. i think -- my concern if i'm the defense here, what are you saying? it was a 27-year-old woman and 60-year-old man. anyone is going to look at that and understand, i think, what she means about a power imbalance and then you add on top of that, the celebrity, the money, the stature, and, again, there is inconsistency with this line of cross. did this sex happen or is it now -- it did happen but it was consensual. i think the defense is going both ways here. now, they're basically saying, yes, they had sex, but i want you to admit that suggestion you had about the inference he stood between the door and did this, you were lying about that, as opposed to it never happened. i think, again, this cross is going on, i think, a little too long, and if i'm susan necheles, i'm starting to question how long more do i need to go into these details. >> i'll note our color from the courtroom says trump has his eyes closed right now during

this testimony. i want to bring yasmin back into this because one thing that i think stands out to me, if there is something consistent about this cross examination, is that they're trying to point to inconsistencies with stormy daniels' story on the stand and compared to things she said over the years, in her books, in her tweets, in interviews. >> reporter: yeah, exploiting minor details as per lisa rubin from inside the courtroom, whether it be her "in touch" interview, an interview she spoke or gave to "vogue" magazine, the interview she gave to anderson cooper as well when it comes to "60 minutes" pointing out the inconsistencies to poke holes in the story so the jury says, well, how can we believe this woman, how can we believe her account from that evening in 2006 when she said she spent the evening in donald trump's hotel room for three hours an they had sex.

and she felt uncomfortable. i think one important thing to focus on here, i think it is a risk that susan necheles is running with this cross examination, she said, you told allen weisselberg you were not a victim as you read, ana. in a way, susan necheles is making stormy daniels a victim. and i'm wondering how the jury is responding to this. and i say this because they say to her, i'm paraphrasing here, i won't go back to the point in which they had that back and forth, they say to her, as you guys read, that you are an adult film actress, you acted in over 150 films, you directed more than 150 films and you say you were uncomfortable as you emerge from the bathroom looking at an individual standing in front of you with boxer shorts and a t-shirt on. how could that be? aren't these situations that you are used to, being in these types of kind of sexual encounters. in a way, they're putting her in that victim position. it seems as if it is coming more from this pre me too era,

they're victimizing women who feel as if they should be at fault and they're also litigating something, guys, that is not on trial. and i bring this up to say that earlier in the day, when court began, they talked about limiting instructions, limiting instructions or essentially what they'll come up with the judge when it comes to this testimony to go to the jury and say you're going to strike this, you heard this detail about this testimony from stormy daniels, that went on in that hotel room, allegedly, and we want you to strike that, right? not consider it. and if they were during deliberations to ask, to be read that portion of her testimony, that portion of her testimony would in fact be redacted. well, now that they brought back some of these details, for instance, the wearing of the boxer shorts and the t-shirt and emerging in that hotel room, possibly things they would have been -- they would have wanted included in the limiting instructions, that is now game over. that's now off the table likely and will not be included in limiting instructions and it

speaks to some of what your attorneys said on the panel which is during redirect, this allows the people's attorney to possibly get into more of those details of that evening because trump's attorneys have opened the door. so, i think it is a really interesting take from necheles, i think the question is how the jury is going to respond and see it. >> and how they're going to see it is key. and i will continue reading just part of it, that just occurred, necheles says your story has completely changed, hasn't it? daniels, no. not at all. you're trying to make me say that it has changed, but it has not changed. necheles, there was a nightclub in the hotel? daniels, bar, restaurant, nightclub, et cetera. necheles, you testified he called you on his bodyguard's phone and invited you to the bar. sitting in the booth with big ben, et cetera. daniels, there were a lot of people there. necheles, in your book you say you were there for about an

hour. daniels, mr. trump left, he was only there for 10 to 15 minutes. the -- i understand and we're seeing these pictures right now, the former president is now leaving, there is clearly a break in the courtroom. juan merchan just announcing the break and the jurors are, of course, been dismissed as well. but, kristen, now this line of questioning on specifics, talk to us about what was there, was there a nightclub, what was there not a nightclub, and then that statement, right, which is your story has completely changed, hasn't it? >> -- attorneys will do when they're trying to highlight inconsistencies. think about it this way, you know, jose, if i asked you right now to give me an answer what you ate for dinner a week ago, you may not know. you may say i ate chicken or your wife or partner may say,

actually it was steak. doesn't mean you're lying. you don't remember certain things that are substantial to you. you may not remember the light was on, the light was off, when someone stood up or someone didn't stand up. those are all things in a closing argument the defense will say, they couldn't remember these things, so they must be lying. it discredits someone's story, it makes them seem like they are incredible because they can't remember every single detail. it is up to the prosecution to say, okay, she didn't remember these insignificant details, but she did remember the substantial details, and the substantial details are what is important here, that there was a sexual encounter, and that she received money for it. she'll also highlight the fact that indirectly she knew the money came from trump and then they will point to all of the other corroborating evidence to then say that these business records are falsified to further conceal this story. and show all of those steps and

also talk about mcdougal and all those other stories that they worked to -- that trump's team worked to conceal so that he could come out looking on top for the election. and i think that's really what, you know, she's -- what she is able -- aiming to do, necheles is aiming to do. i have to agree it really is probably going on a little bit too long. she's done a good job of highlighting some of the inconsistencies, she did a great job the other day highlighting that stormy daniels did not like trump and i think that really is enough because, again, if you're just going for the inconsistencies, it really does overlook the broader context of what her testimony is there to show. and that's that she had a story to tell, whether true or false, and that trump wanted to conceal that story before his presidency. >> elise, i wanted to just pick up on something that yasmin pointed to, and it is also something highlighted by our laura jarrett, who is there inside the courthouse today, and she says, you know, this is like a throwback to the pre me too

era, the way susan necheles is cross-examining stormy daniels. your thoughts about that? >> is this a calculation by the defense that that's where the jury is. i wonder if that's their reason of choosing this posture that they're choosing to appeal to where they see the jury, not where they necessarily see the country, the media, and they're trying to win the case on that basis. or are they playing for another courtroom, for the court of public opinion, where trump's fans are definitely on the side of this is, you know, a blatant miscarriage of justice, this is donald trump being railroaded by blue state prosecutors, and, look, you know, she is a porn star, trying to use her personal history as a weapon, against her in the courtroom. >> so, let's do this, while the courtroom is in a break, 37 past the hour, about 11 minutes from now, let's take a short break

and continue with a whole lot more on this historic day on msnbc. t more on this historic day on msnbc. so this is pickleball? it's basically tennis for babies, but for adults. it should be called wiffle tennis. pickle! yeah, aw! whoo! ♪♪ these guys are intense. we got nothing to worry about. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? got him. good game. thanks for coming to our clinic, first one's free. (♪♪ ) why did i keep missing out on this? before you were preventing migraine with qulipta?

do you remember the pain, the worry, the canceled plans? and look at me now. you'll never truly forget migraine but qulipta reduces attacks making zero-migraine days possible. it's the only pill of its kind that blocks cgrp and is approved to prevent migraine of any frequency. to help give you that forget you get migraine feeling. don't take if allergic to qulipta. most common side effects are nausea, constipation and sleepiness. learn how abbvie could help you save. qulipta, the forget-you-get migraine medicine.

my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. ( ♪♪ ) i thought water would help with these dry spots. that's lawn disease. but scotts healthy plus will cure it! lawn disease? been going around. so like other people have it and it's not... pick up a bag of the new scotts turf builder healthy plus lawn food today. feed your lawn. feed it. (ella) fashion moves fast. scotts turf builder healthy plus lawn food today. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network.

our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon.

31 past the hour. as we have been focusing so much on what has been going on inside the courtroom, vaughn hillyard can tell us what has been

happening outside the courtroom. vaughn? >> jose, we were wondering if allies of donald trump would begin to more steadily come by his side here on these days of trial. monday, tuesdays, thursdays, fridays, and so far today, your first member of congress coming here and that was senator rick scott of florida, flying up from florida with the former president, and sitting in the row directly behind him here throughout this morning's proceedings. and just a few moments ago, he left the courthouse to come and talk with reporters and i want to let you hear a part of what he said, take a listen. >> let's look at who is involved in doing this. the lead prosecutor was the number three person that biden -- the biden justice department. the judge's daughter is a political operative. raises money for democrats. you got the lead prosecutor's wife is the significant donor to

democrats. and i think to biden. this is just a bunch of democrats saying, we want to make sure that donald trump can't talk. >> reporter: now, there is an explicit order -- gag order on donald trump from attacking members of the district attorney's office that are not alvin bragg, but also attacking family members of anybody including alvin bragg as well as judge merchan. and the reason that we bring up the gag order here is that, well, these were not donald trump's specific words, that under that gag order it specifically says that the defendant, donald trump, is directed for -- directed from making or directing others to make public statements about these individuals. so, we, of course, don't have the details on whether donald trump explicitly told rick scott to exit the courtroom and make the public statements here yet rick scott essentially doing what donald trump is not able to do in his own words.

the second part is i did have the chance to ask rick scott two very specific questions, whether he believed stormy daniels or donald trump and whether he believed that it was an illegal in kind contribution of $130,000 to donald trump's 2016 campaign and answer he gave to both of those questions was that this is a records trial, over business records and how they were denoted in the company's filings here. so, not directly answering either of my questions, guys. >> vaughn, thank you. please stand by with us. i want to bring in michael steele, and msnbc political analyst and co-host of "the weekend" on msnbc. and the former rnc chairman. so, michael, we are seeing more trump allies show up in court this week. rick scott, senator from florida the latest, along with some of his campaign aides like boris epstein, eric trump is the only family member who has been in court throughout these proceedings. what do you make of what vaughn

just shared with us and those comments from senator scott? >> well, all the little ducklings are starting to follow behind mother duck. and, you know, i'm sure we're going to start to see a parade of folks fly into this case, fly up to new york, could be a part of this narrative. i take note that donald trump just kind of walked by rick scott. i assume he knows who the senator is -- >> there he is coming back in. >> with trump, you never know. >> sorry to interrupt you. we're showing that the former president is now heading back in to the courthouse. i'm sorry, michael, continue. >> okay. yeah. this is the other thing, i mean, i don't think we need to detail every movement of donald trump. it plays into his narrative to make him something other than what he actually is, and that's a criminal defendant. and i think we need to be very careful about that. and how we present this story to the country. and that's important when it

comes to what we're talking about. someone like rick scott or others coming up and being able to mouth the words that donald trump has been gagged from doing, you know, it is laughable to go after the judge's daughter who contributed money to a campaign, to a democratic campaign, that disqualifies that judge or somehow makes them biased. i give you aileen cannon, who was appointed by donald trump, who just delayed the trial for inexplicable reasons. i know, to help donald trump. so, rick scott, are you going to address that as aileen cannon somehow a bad actor, bad faith actor in this? no, of course not. because it is furthering donald trump's narrative. it is delaying one of the most important trials of this century. so, i think we need to put all of this in perspective and understand exactly what is happening here, and treat it the way we would any other scenario, involving donald trump, and that is making sure the lies are

rebuffed and refuted, and not leveling up his story line any more than we already have because it just bakes in a narrative about him that undermines the case that he's involved in, and that is let's let the case play out and let the jury decide his guilt or innocence instead of trying to, you know, play along this sort of tv narrative with donald trump coming out and spewing crazy. >> right now, the judge, judge merchan, is asked to get back to the witness inside the courthouse. and, michael, you know, it is interesting, because oftentimes one wonders how much of this could play a part outside, right, and we're looking at six months to the election. you know, elise was saying for the most part most people have who trump is, according to them, baked in. is this something that you think could change the needle?

>> yeah, i think -- i think to some degree it can. when you -- if a jury comes back with a conviction here, that's a very powerful statement. it says that donald trump as we saw with the eileen -- excuse me, with the e. jean carroll case was, you know, culpable. and as he's been shown culpable in the past. whether it is trump university or running his -- managing his business affairs. so this becomes another part of that narrative that voters then have to assess, jose, in their decision on who the next president of the united states should be and already judged criminal defendant, someone who has been ajudged a sexual predator, someone who has been found guilty of bad business practices, or the current president, who the worst thing he's done is get, you know, infrastructure bills done.

so, it just -- this is the way that the state -- the states have to look at this, and those battleground states, the voters in those battleground states and voters across the country are going to have to assess the selection. this will play a part in that, for sure. >> michael steele, thank you so much for taking some of your day and spending it with us and, of course, you can watch michael on the weekend, every weekend here on msnbc. we're continuing to await resumption of the cross examination of stormy daniels, by donald trump's attorney, they should be just returning from break any moment now. we see that merchan, the judge, has asked to get the witness and bring her back. so, as we await that, guys, let me ask our legal analysts here about those comments we heard from senator scott outside the courtroom. he specifically went after the judge's daughter. not donald trump making those comments, but as it pertains to the gag order, i went and double-checked it, he -- trump, is not allowed to make or direct

others to make public statements about the list as we have discussed witnesses, jurors, but also family members of members of the court or staff and that includes the judge's family members, so was that a violation of the gag order? >> no, i just tweeted how this and similar to what michael steel was just talking about, could be very much so a foreshadowing of how trump the candidate seeks to navigate his way around the gag order, whether that's people who are flying up to new york or whether that's people within his own party who are going to use their respective platforms to say things that donald trump cannot say. >> but senator scott was just in court with trump. who is to say trump didn't ask senator scott to go after the judge's daughter. >> unless you can establish that motion, in front of a judge, unless you have a good faith basis to establish that, it is all going to be speculation. i suspect that may be one of the

reasons why donald trump just walked past senator scott and did not acknowledge him. you're talking about a senator who is from a very important state that your party and that you need for your re-election. >> and running for re-election. >> he knows who senator scott is. so, the lack of an acknowledgement to me is likely some level of a nod of i'm not going to give you anything to associate me with the comments he made, he made these comments on his own volition and i'm not in violation of the gag order, no matter how much i might actually agree. >> you can just -- asking this question, that's a clear way of getting around the gag order, right? if that's what you do. you can just do this? >> i would say, presumed that the former president didn't direct this, there is no getting around -- he's not getting around the gag order, gag order just doesn't apply here. and i think we have to remember the gag order here is incredibly, incredibly limited. i think that is what is

interesting about what senator scott did there, there is a few individuals, witnesses, family members, these are very few people you can talk about the judge, you can attack d.a. bragg, him mentioning the daughter of the judge is clearly trying to poke the bear as far as these are one of the few people that really is protected, but it is not going around the gag order. i don't think judge merchan is going to do anything about this. because if you're him, what you truly want here is the best you can, keep inside that courtroom and get this trial to a verdict. i think it is hard enough to control the former president to attempt to now instruct a sitting senator of how they should conduct public statements, i think that's kind of outside the scope of what the judge is going to be able do in any real way. >> you think we'll see a lot of republicans lining up to be this attack dog to do trump's bidding here? >> it is pavlovian by now. they're going to jump through the hoop, they're going to fight to get a seat in that courtroom. and to be on donald trump's side because how soon, if he hasn't already, is rick scott sending

out a fund-raising email, about he is trump's strongest supporter, and he's going to have, you know, maybe images from, you know, of him at trump's side, walking around today, who knows what he's going to do, but he's getting a benefit from this and as you mentioned, he's up for re-election, i believe his democratic opponent so far has outfund-raised him, this is a way to do his fund-raising and he won't have to commit more of his personal fortune to his own race. >> what if donald trump is found guilty? now you're associated with being in the courtroom supporting him. >> i think that this case really makes very little of a difference when it comes to the very deep red states. if anything, donald trump is going to spin this as a conviction is -- he's railroaded the deep state, came after him, the blue state came after him, the liberals wanted to get him and see how they would go to any depth and that will help republican candidates in certain districts and in certain states. >> pretty amazing you're talking

about florida as a deep red state, isn't it? how times have changed. >> times have changed. you know the state far better than i do. >> incredible. joining us now is marcus childress for the house january 6th committee and former air force jag prosecutor. thank you for being with us. your thoughts on what we have seen so far today. >> i want to touch on the gag order because i agree with my former colleague about, you know, the limited power that the court has under this gag order. also, i think it is important to point out that, you know, if i'm a prosecutor, i'm not sure it is worth my time investing and establishing that direct line between the former president trump directing the senator to make these comments outside of the courtroom. i'm not sure that's a good use of my resources at this stage of the trial. right now the prosecution is putting on a pretty great case. it is going better than folks may have expected before this even started showing that this entire fraudulent transaction

was to impact the 2016 election and now you have a cross examination that is not necessarily going as great as some might have thought with stormy daniels. if you're the prosecution, you want to keep this trial going. you want to keep riding this trial out, get to a verdict, and in a way that is clean, because we know the former president is going to appeal, so the issue that we can minimize on appeal the better and so by raising, you know, the former president might have directed someone to make a comment about the judge's daughter, i'm not sure that's worth it. >> thank you, and please stay with us as we head back into the courtroom. the testimony has resumed now. and susan necheles, donald trump's attorney, is back to questioning stormy daniels and she's asking again about this interaction they had at the golf tournament, as well as stormy daniels more recent tour of the make america horny again tour. and necheles asks her, trump was the biggest star at that golf tournament?

daniels says, depends on who you're a fan of. necheles, he did very well at that golf tourney, right? daniels, i don't remember. necheles, he was playing golf and you saw that where he went people recognized him. daniels, yes. necheles, when you went to the suite, the door was open and keith schiller was standing outside. daniels, it was cracked. necheles, when you went in, there was a door to the bedroom. when you went in it was far from keith schiller? daniels, i didn't know where he was at that point in time. necheles, the door to the bedroom was closed? daniels, no. the bedroom was very far from the door, from the front door you just said. daniels, it was off the living room, yes. necheles, you claimed you felt uncomfortable and could not walk out because keith schiller was outside the hotel suite and then there was an apparent objection. and daniels says absolutely i would have to pass by him and

get in an elevator. he's a large man, talking about keith schiller who is trump's body man who is outside the hotel room where this alleged sexual encounter occurred. so that's, again, where they're taking questioning back in the hotel room, back to whether i guess she felt threatened in some way when she was in the hotel room with donald trump. >> yeah, you know, to me, if i'm -- i'm starting to wonder whether the defense is really been guided by the defendant here because this is starting to sound more and more about undercutting stormy as a person, as a vendetta, as opposed to part of a trial strategy. sometimes the defendant says i want you to grab this person, punish them. i want you to put the knife in and turn it. as far as the cohesive strategy, you have to ask, what is the takeaway from the final questioning? if you're doing a cross examination, you're asking what am i establishing? and the big thing about cross is you don't go for home runs,

you're trying to hit a single and double, you never go for a home run. >> what do you mean by that? >> you don't -- having the question like trump mentioned about the law and order, the home run moment is, and you're a liar and the person goes, like, yes, i'm a liar and you go, i've won. you run around. a single means, hey, you make a really good point. you get them to concede, i actually don't remember whether someone was outside the door. maybe that's a single. a double, i don't remember what day it was or whether mr. trump was here or there. and you make these little incremental gains and in closing you get to say, put it all together and these are runs, this is how i'm scoring. here, when you keep going on and on and on again, and then the same line of questioning, this hasn't been very long of a -- we have been on for a couple of days, and we're now returning back to the same questioning already. >> and that, charles, is probably the most significant aspect of this, there is -- there are very few new things

that she is being asked about. >> yeah, you know, in the beginning, i wanted to err on the side of caution and trusting the attorney's strategy, but this more and more is coming across as extremely unfocused and rambled as the longer we go, because i'm not understanding what it is that necheles is bringing out and to his point, i think there were some really strong singles and doubles early on. getting stormy daniels to say, you know, you hate donald trump, don't you? yes. that's a big deal for the defense. getting stormy daniels to acknowledge at different points during cross examination about the type of money that she was looking to make off of donald trump, these are big things. you take these dots, you take them back, you run with them later on during your summation when you make your connections, but now is not the time to make your argument and try to sell your case on cross examination. >> let's go back into the courtroom, and this document from the cross examination,

susan necheles, donald trump's attorney asking, you last spoke with donald trump in 2010? daniels, yes. necheles, that's a long time ago, you have no personal knowledge of his involvement with that transaction. daniels, not directly, no. necheles, you understand the money came from michael cohen? daniels, the money was wired to me from kd, her then attorney, keith davidson. i didn't have proof. necheles, you understand president trump is charged with a crime based on how it was labeled? daniels, there was a lot of it -- there are a lot of indictments. and then there is laughter. necheles, you changed your story many times because you never had an affair with president trump. there is an objection. that's sustained. and then it appears that >> sidebar just started. >> but there's a little bit more that has just populated in our google document before the end of the questioning. she comes back to the

non-disclosure agreement. let me read that as well. am i correct that you signed the non-disclosure agreement in this case with legal advice? daniels says, yes. you did not negotiate that? not directly. and your lawyer dealt with michael cohen? yes. and michael cohen paid you, not mr. trump? then daniels says, my attorney paid me. the money was wired to me from keith davidson. michael cohen wired that money to keith davidson. daniels says, that's what i understand, but i have no proof. >> from that then she said, nothing further. your thoughts on that? this specific issue to finish the cross with? >> any time you are leaving the jury something, you want it to be impactful. that's exactly -- they are

showing us where they are going next, draw a story between stormy daniels and michael cohen. that's some part of the theory here. that's why they ended there. i think if i'm the defense, i'm trying to put as many steps in between donald trump and any of these individuals. i think that's what they want to show. you talked about the money, the documents. how this money got to you, it wasn't the former president. it's michael cohen. eventually, they will say, you can't believe that guy michael cohen. that's what we are seeing. building the foundation for the future argument. >> there's a sidebar is our understanding. then there would be redirect after this, right? where do you go with redirect if you are the prosecution? >> right now, i go to lunch. >> can we take a lunch break? >> yes. if i'm the prosecutor, i am pushing for a lunch break. i realize that if there's something i'm concerned with or if there's a strong point i want

to make, the jury is less likely to absorb it now than they are after they have had a real break and an opportunity for lunch. whether judge -- as a prosecutor i'm thinking about, what do i need stormy daniels for? anything that has not been fatally detrimental to what i actually need her for, regardless of whatever the defense brought out, those are things i want to focus on many i redirect, to refresh in the jury's mind, if it's been damaged or hurt at any point, and anything else i feel like might be too loud of background noise to detract from that, i want to neutralize that. i haven't heard anything that i think rises to that level. i wouldn't expect an extremely -- i would be disappointed if the prosecution had an extremely long redirect

here. there are things you don't necessarily need to go back and try to dispute. >> how are you seeing things right now? >> i agree 100% about going on a lunch break. the prosecution ended the direct examination on tuesday and leave the defense with a little time to start their cross, because of that wednesday break. that gave the jury a lot of time to go home and sit on the direct examination that they heard from the prior day. going to redirect, i agree. i don't think there's been too much that's been fatal to your case. the only thing i might want to touch on is the time line of from the "access hollywood" tape until the payment was made. that's the key evidence that shows intent from the former president to want to pay off stormy daniels to keep this story from getting out. i thought the evidence where stormy daniels talked about the interest after the tape came out, that's important to hit

home for the jury and also to re-establish that she understood these payments to be benefitting the former president's campaign and that it wasn't about the former president's brand or embarrassing his family. you saw the defense council end on a high note that it was michael cohen making the payments. it's important to establish it's about the trump campaign. keep it tight and move on to your next witness. >> right now, the sidebar continues. our reporting is that trump is sitting with one of his attorneys while his other attorneys are there at the bench and that trump is chatting with bove. your business takeaway from the defense and how damaging this cross-examination may have been to the case for the prosecution and where they need to maybe go back and re-visit with stormy daniels when the redirect begins. >> it begins right now.

it's started. it's beginning right now. >> go ahead. >> i think that cross-examination started strong, talked about how she hated him. it ended strong. i think the effective strategy for stormy daniels on behalf of the defense is to highlight she had no direct knowledge. i don't know why they spent so much time going into all of the inconsistencies. i said earlier, it overlooks the broader context. she had a story that they wanted to conceal. i think the redirect is really just going to hit some major points. i think they need to show there was that time line. very similar to what your previous guest said. there was a time line and that he had a reason to want to conceal it only for that presidential election. then once that was over, he was fine with her going ahead and telling her story. the other thing that's important in some subtle way to highlight

is that she told her story and the best she could remember it. one of the things is she didn't say, i spoke with donald trump directly, he used his name. she didn't define the entirety of the case. that speaks volumes to her credibility. it's probably something they want to hit home on in the closing argument. i think they could lay some foundation during redirect. >> thank you very much. i want to read what's happening right now inside that courtroom with the prosecution now doing that redirect with stormy daniels. it started with almost an immediate objection by the defense. good afternoon, miss daniels, defense counsel asked you lots of questions, whether your motivation was -- there was an objection overruled. whether your motivation was -- your attorney friend said

something about hiding in plain view. it was my, not the attorney representing me, this was a friend trying to give me advice. his friends in the military use the term get high, stay high. something won't happen if everyone is looking at you. it's hard to follow right now in this document because it's being filled in by our reporters in the courtroom. we don't have cameras and audio. we are giving you what we are reading in real time. >> including, giving her -- showing stormy daniels a document. she said, you did not threaten to sue donald trump? daniels, no. she says, she had you read through texts and pull out the box where dylan says -- >> daniels says -- >> this is a text message they are showing between gina rodriguez and stormy daniels. once again, it's just a recap of

what was going on there and how -- the first line of questioning was something won't happen to you if everyone is looking at you, is that daniels says. >> i know you are also taking a look at what's happening. where do you think they're going with this redirect right now? >> it sounds to me as though they might be trying to explain why stormy daniels was so insistent upon telling her story in so many different places. the notion that she may have been somehow fearful that something could have happened to her. by keeping a high profile, she places herself in a position where she's less likely to face physical danger and/or harm. that undercuts a bit of her testimony inasmuch as she acknowledged she faced threats and other things. depending how you argue that, it could undercut. but it also could support.

i don't know that this is necessarily a point that i would want to spend a lot of time on or go through the purposes of redirect. >> it does go to show the power of the defendant in possibly affecting how she lives her life. there is an important part of putting context on where it was, what was happening, 2015, 2016, and who it was. >> i could see that. i don't know that i'm going to waste -- i won't call it a waste. i don't know i would spend redirect on that. all of those points can be argued based off of what people know. it's donald trump, the former president of the united states of america. it's someone who at that point enjoyed a high degree of celebrity and still enjoys a considerable cult following. everyone on the jury knows that. i don't know specifically the value in any of my