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 -- feel free

to disagree. >> a conversation to be continued. it's our turn to hand it off to our colleagues. thank you all so much for being with us. our reporters continue to update us from the courtroom and outside the courthouse. it's been a great couple of hours with you at home as well. >> chris jansing and andrea mitchell pick up with much more news next. ♪♪ stormy daniels back on the witness stand for her second day under only in the criminal trial against former president donald trump. the defense team portraying daniels as a liar looking for quick cash. prosecutors taking their second chance to question their witness after the defendant and

presumptive presidential nominee on his way into court promised very interesting things electric today's proceedings. good day, i'm andrea mitchell, along with my colleague, chris jansing here in new york. for the next three hours, we will bring you live updates on exactly what is going on inside that manhattan courtroom. >> what has been going on all day long. that's where we begin our special coverage. vaughn hillyard outside the courthouse. also with us, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg, "washington post" national editor philip rucker, co-author of two books about donald trump. joining us in new york, two people who worked in the manhattan district attorney's office, katherine christian and jeremy salind. >> let's get to it. vaughn is outside the courthouse. as the cross-examination continues -- now, it's the

defense -- the prosecution, rather, on redirect, how did the defense try to undermine ms. daniels' credibility? at times, she was very aggressive in interrupting, as the defense lawyer tried to pin her down. she would say, no, that's not right and injected things that were very graphic about her career. >> reporter: right. from inside the courtroom, stormy daniels, with confident, went toe to toe with donald trump's lawyer, questioning her credibility by trying to extract stories she had shared about the last 18 years, particularly around the 2011 parking lot incident in which she said she was threatened by an unknown man to not ever say and repeat any stories about her and donald trump. then there was discrepancies over whether she ate food and

had dinner with donald trump in 2006 on the night of the one-night stand. every step of the way, stormy daniels owned her story. she owned explicitly her hate for donald trump. she owned each of these instances and the events as they unfolded and that she explained away some of the little discrepancies over the fact that they were not so much as discrepancies as much as they were not always revealing all of the details to individuals like "60 minutes." when you look at from the trump attorneys' standpoint, we were wondering if they were going to question the veracity of several instances in which stormy daniels said she had interacted with donald trump. that didn't happen. she also didn't try to get stormy daniels to admit she was not there with donald trump at the trump vodka party in los angeles in 2007. she didn't try to get stormy

daniels to admit that they never actually talked on the phone. she testified they talked on the phone for two, three times a week for several weeks in a row. instead, stormy daniels, in that witness box, she testified every step of the way that she stood by the stories she shared for the last 18 years. she did, however, directly acknowledge that she had no direct knowledge of the $130,000 payment in october 2016, being explicitly directed by donald trump. ultimately, an important part of her testimony was her defense of her own story. that's exactly what she laid out not only with -- under questioning from the prosecution, but also under cross-examination by donald trump's own attorney. >> we are going back into the document now. donald trump is talking to his main lawyer, todd blanche. after introducing evidence we have seen before, a series of

text messages, the prosecutor asked, did she ask you to read that box, referring to the defense attorney, where she said she never did? i don't think so. defense talked about the "in touch" article. you indicated it was a light article. is that right? for entertainment purposes. yes. see where it says this has been lightly edited. did she ask you about that? no. she asked a lot of questions about what you did not say. you didn't tell every detail to anderson cooper. it was very long. in those two cases, catherine christian, she's making the point that you didn't see everything either in the "in touch" article or the interview on "60 minutes."

why might that be important? >> it's proving to the jury that the defense attorney put in facts favorable to her client but omitted facts not favorable. left out information that's more helpful to the prosecution. >> that's something jurors really clue into easily? >> because they wonder, oh, so you are being a little slick here with me, some jurors will think that. that's why a good prosecutor will get up and rehabilitate miss daniels by bringing up the fact there were things omitted. >> i'm interested in your take on her demeanor and the way she's answering the questions now from the prosecutor, compared to during cross. yes and no answers. unlike yesterday when the judge was critical of her after the jury left the room of giving too much, saying too much, giving information that had not been asked. she was not a great witness in

that regard, because she went into some troublesome areas. today, she seems to be clearly someone from the prosecution has talked to her. during the cross-examination, i thought she was giving a lot of information that had not been asked, but pushing back very hard and going into areas about the kind of sex that goes on in the films she was making. and offering that kind of detail. but also interrupting and denying and aggressively pushing back against. how does that go over with the jury? >> as vaughn said, she's her authentic self. she's not ashamed she's an adult film actress. the same way mr. pecker is who he owning and standing up. she didn't cry. she was very strong. >> now we are seeing that they

are briefing donald trump on what was discussed there. the sidebar outside of the earshot of the jurors. there were many things that you did not tell anderson cooper? daniels is asked by the prosecutor. there are many things you did tell anderson cooper. yes. in terms of the context, did you tell anderson cooper you had sex in the hotel room and details of what happened? daniels, yes. >> there's another objection. >> another bench meeting. >> it's interesting to me to what you said, the difference in the demeanor. i think, jeremy, they answers are not just different from yesterday, they are different than cross-examination in a very significant way. when she was pushing back against -- >> exactly. >> she said, you are trying to trick me into saying things that

are not true. i was not selling myself to anyone. show me what i said she said several times. you said this, didn't you? show me where it is. produce me the evidence where i said that. i don't remember seeing that. the demeanor clearly, even from reading this document, is very different. >> absolutely. i'm looking down here. at times i felt as if she did a mike drop in a swipe with her leg and took out the defense. there was a question here about making phony sex stories and trying to impeach her as being a liar and extorter. she then responds basically saying, that's not how i would put it. the sex is very much real, just like what happened to me in the room. that's a dropkick of a response on her part to put the defense in their place. you can poke at me, attack my credibility, say what you want to say. i'm going to get back to you in those words and there's your

answer. >> there was another exchange after that where she was asked basically the lead of the comment was that you made up the story, you make up stories. she says, you have a lot of experience making phony stories about sex. that's not how i would put it. the sex is very real like what happened in the room. now there's a story you are telling about president trump. if that story was untrue, i would have written it to be a lot better. she shows a lot of personality. >> who would admit they had sex with president trump? she has this tone of credibility. you don't want to necessarily like her as your neighbor. she may not be your best friend. that's not what this is about. the concern that i would have as the defense is, you are taking this into an area that doesn't matter. at the end of the day, whether they had sex or not is inconsequence shall. it's irrelevant. it doesn't make a difference. it's why the former president --

i keep on using that term -- did what he did. if you believe he falsiied records, what was the reason? >> i want to go back to that. it's an interesting point of the whole thing. why did they go back to that? chuck, let me ask this. we are following the document. every three or four or five lines there's an objection and an overrule or sustained. they keep breaking what i would think of as the rhythm of this. is that something strategic or do you think it's grounded in the law if we are seeing, i guess, overruled, overruled? >> it could be both. most of the time -- it's a great question. prosecutors or defense attorneys do get into a rhythm. maybe the other side is trying to disrupt that. i want to go back to something jeremy said. i agree with him completely that whether or not they had sex is

somewhat irrelevant. although, it does bolster somewhat her credibility and the context for the payments. one way or another, whether they had sex or not, they gave her a bunch of money to be quiet and to lie about the encounter. that's what matters. that's what led to the falsification of the books. i should add, i come from a federal district where judges routinely either discourage redirect or prohibited prosecutors like me from doing redirect. that informed my judgement here. but it's this, i think she did fine on cross-examination. i don't think they really undermined her or her story. she is what she is. she did what she did. she got money for not talking about it. it's not clear to me why the prosecutor felt the need -- by the way, they are better at this than me. i haven't done this in a while.

it's not clear why the prosecutor felt the need to do redirect. i come from a federal district where they discouraged or prohibited it. if the person you called was not undermined on cross-examination, then one thing you can say at that point is, we have nothing further, judge. we are done. no redirect. >> chuck, she did want to bring something else out here. right now on the stand, daniels is being asked, do you remember saying you used the words of the person who responded to you, that someone tweeted at stormy and good luck walking down the streets after this, and stormy daniels' tweet is shown. tiny paid me to frame himself. you sound dumber than he does. do you know who that person was? she says no. the person also said, good luck walking down the streets. what did you understand that to mean? daniels says, that i wouldn't be safe going in public anymore. now she's being shown another

piece of evidence, an exhibit. it's being shown only to the council or parties. it was just another example of someone showing up in your twitter page saying something about you that you responded to back in december of 2022. she says, yes. are these examples of things people have said to you and about you in relation to president trump? yes, they are tame, actually. she's being asked about the social media posts. i'm going back to the question that we have been talking about. why did they, first of all, spend so much time with her on the stand, why did the defend spend so much time on cross-examination? do you think they erred? >> i come from a district where cross and direct, and we are to the point. the thing we learned as prosecutors was, keep it simple. get them off the stand.

i don't know that a cross-examination of stormy daniels really needed to take more than about 20 to 30 minutes. there's a couple points you want to make. that she lied about the story. the story kept changing. she was trying to get money to -- in exchange for her silence. all of this other stuff is beside the point. going back to jeremy's earlier point, whether or not they had sex is really rather irrelevant. the best cross-examinations always are the ones that have two or three points to make. you make your points and you sit down and you shut up. some lawyers are not capable of that. >> i want to go back, if i can now to phil rucker. phil, having written two books about it, having covered him, you know donald trump very well. the last answers that she gave that she was concerned about her

safety reminded me of the very first thing she talked about when she came back for redirect, because she was asked about a friend of hers who had given her advice. what was that advice? she said, his friends in the military use the term, get high, stay high. in other words -- this is a quote from stormy daniels -- something won't happen to you if everyone is looking at you. in other words, somehow her being even more in the public eye than she ever was before is a kind of safety for her. they also just read exhibit 408b. this is a truth social post by donald trump. it says, if you go after me, i'm coming after you. who was mr. trump directing this to at this time? daniels, i wasn't sure, but i thought it was me. goes on to ask, you had nothing

to do with the charges in this case, did you? i did not. it does bring up a point that really is central to what's happening inside this courtroom, including the gag order, the fear that many people who donald trump has turned against fear for themselves because of things that they have seen happen, whether it's verbal or all the way going to what happened at the capitol. >> yeah, chris, this is all about the power of intimidation, which has been a central theme for donald trump for many, many years now in how he tries to combat his adversaries, real or perceived. he uses every power in his tool kit, which includes his social media army and his spoertz in -- supporters in the maga movement to set them on stormy daniels, because she's in the

courtroom with him as part of this criminal trial. that threat could be any number of other people in the past. we have seen him use this power to intimidate against other women who have come forward with accusations of sexual harassment or assault. we have seen him do this about political adversaries, members of congress, prosecutors, judges. it's one of the reasons why this particular judge has been so adamant about the violations of the gag order. it's central to trump's playbook to use the power of his political standing and the power that he has in terms of the support from millions of people in the country and the social media trolls that he has at his disposal to intimidate people from speaking the truth. >> the prosecutor has said nothing further. they are back for recross at

12:19. before she finished, the prosecutor said, the defense lawyer asked you about making money by telling lies about donald trump. are you telling lies about trump or the truth? daniels says, truth. daniels says, i've had to move a couple of times. i lost the judgement on my attorneys' fees because the case was thrown out. has telling the truth about trump been positive or negative for your life. there's an objection. daniels answers, negative. nothing further. recross and is asking, this is some stranger who tweeted at you. that's what happens on twitter. people say nasty things. it's from someone who is politically opposed to you, supporting president trump? yes says daniels. that's the kind of thing that goes on twitter.

among lots of things. she shows daniels' response. that's you being nasty right back, calling each other names? you got engaged in a fight. she's trying to minimize the aspect of the threat. there was no threat from this social media post that had just been referred to. >> why is whether or not she felt threatened something you would come back with? >> i wouldn't. the negative of redirect it gives the defense attorney a time to recross. i agree with chuck. i don't think there was a need to do redirect. a lot of what was crossed on was left out. i think the cross-examination, it started 9:45, should have ended at 10:15. the point was made that she's bias and she has hostility and interests against trump. it went far afield. she was paid $130,000 to remain

quiet before the election. that's her role as her testimony. that's been established. >> i have to say, there was a point at which questions were raised about the fact that she had an online store. she was selling things. where there's an obvious parallel. donald trump has sold everything from steaks to wine to bibles and sneakers. some of this stuff -- i know you think that this has gone on long. i'm trying to get a sense of -- it's worth remembering, you only need one member of the jury -- you throw a lot of stuff out there. if you discredit her in some way to one single juror, is that what -- >> you discredit her, michael cohen. you so far -- there has been no witness who directly ties donald

trump to the payment. we get a nugget of reasonable doubt each way you are going. in terms of -- i haven't been in the courtroom. when she was laughing, jurors weren't laughing with her. i have learned to never predict what a jury is going to do. you never know what one or two jurors are really thinking. >> a lot of people tell bad jokes, as i can attest personally. joining us now is katie fang. what are you seeing or hearing of where this is going? we are closing out quickly with stormy daniels, potentially. >> yeah. some cogent analysis. i want to emphasize a couple of things that were kind of big takeaways.

one, the defense strategy to slut shame stormy daniels for her life choices is going to backfire. they didn't bring her in like a busload of nuns to corroborate something. they brought her in for the reason, to explain why donald trump would want to hide what happened with her so that people didn't know about it before the november 2016 election. the other thing is, if you think about it, the fact that stormy daniels, according to the defense, isn't telling the truth, is not relevant. why? because donald trump paid dino the doorman despite not believing that story as well. technically, ami paid it, but donald trump knew about it. the veracity of the underlying encounters wasn't the threshold decision maker for donald trump. what do i want to keep out of public consumption? the story by stormy daniels is

just a consistent one. it's consistent with what she said before, but more importantly, it's consistent with the prosecution's theory. if it's going to embarrass donald trump, he is going to want to keep it quiet. that's exactly what happened with stormy daniels. a lot of wasted time on cross-examination to catherine's point. get in and get out. you didn't have to cover all this real estate with stormy daniels. you just had to show she didn't have personal knowledge. it would have been enough for purposes of the elements of the crime. frankly, they took the bait. they complained about the details on tuesday. the defense took the bait. >> you can see what's happening in the document now where the prosecution on redirect wants to maybe start to close it out. they show a trump truth social post. i did nothing wrong in the horse

face case. may 15, 2022. that is the last impression that maybe they will be leaving with that jury. >> they are calling the next witness. >> that's important. they are moving on. stormy daniels came in on tuesday. there was the break in the testimony on wednesday which helped stormy daniels. she was not as rushed today. more composed, more measured. in terms of zingers, she delivered them today against the defense. at this point, you are moving on. the case proceeds. they told the court on tuesday, the prosecution said we would be done in two weeks. >> let me ask you if what you think is happening with the last question to stormy daniels, about how he called her horse face and sleaze bag. todd blanche tried to present donald trump as a husband, a

father, just like you and me. in many ways, as least part of the basis of this defense, is this is a family man trying to protect the people he loves. it's not about someone who cooked the books to pay money for keeping quiet an affair that he to this day denies happened. is that sort of the subtext here? this is not a family guy whose motivation was to protect the family. this is a guy who had a sexual encounter with a porn star and called her sleaze bag and horse face. >> they are setting up traps they are falling into themselves. sharing a tweet where she was called an aging harlot does not help your case. demeaning a woman who came from single mother, was accomplished, moved out of the porn industry. it's not a winning argument.

you are setting yourself up for failure. by opening up doors and looking bad, you give her sympathy and empathy. stormy daniels -- they gave her the opportunity to say, he did not put his hands on me, he did not give me any drugs or alcohol, and he did not hold me, threaten me. my own insecurities kept me from saying no. when this objection, objection, objection, too many details were coming in, it's going to prejudice, now they gave her the opportunity to try to unring that bell and take some of the argument away from what they may want to bring up on appeal. the more quickly they shut their mouths, the better they will be. >> her hatred of donald trump. >> they called the next witness. it's weisselberg's assistant. this gets to the alleged crime, which is the false bookkeeping.

a lot of legal experts, you guys who are all the lawyers, many of you are saying, why this all -- all this diverse. you didn't need to call stormy daniels. katie, i don't know what your take is. they are now getting to the core of the case, which is how these transactions allegedly were made, the coverup, allegedly. >> it's kind of -- we see it was a detour calling stormy daniels. twofold. everybody expected a name witness to come. that was stormy daniels. there's this idea that the prosecution started strong with david pecker. to the extent the evidence about the underlying business records, we heard from deborah tarasoff who provided evidence that there was this falsification process that was going on at trump organization.

to your point, that is the reminder to the jury that this case is about 34 felonies of falsification of business records. when you call necessary witnesses, the people that did the booking of these entries, that handled the paperwork, these are the people that actually may not have the personal knowledge of the conversations, and yet they can link the stories together. that's why they are important witnesses for the prosecution. >> thank you. >> we want to go to vaughn and talk about the next witness that has been called. the longtime cfo of trump org -- what can you tell us about her? >> reporter: they is where we link the business records part and the execution of the checks, the reimbursement checks from donald trump to michael cohen. allen weisselberg, along with don junior, signed the first two

checks in 2017 through the trust that went to michael cohen as reimbursement. what she's able to effectively accomplish through her testimony for the prosecution here is acknowledging that she worked with weisselberg on a daily basis, close basis. she's testified in the last few minutes that she watched allen weisselberg talk with donald trump every single day. she was the one who helped -- would take checks to weisselberg himself to actually process and sign the checks. this is, for the prosecution, because we don't expect to see allen weisselberg testimony himself. he is in rikers serving prison time for perjury related to the civil fraud suit. he remained a close ally of the trumps. has never directly testified against donald trump himself here. what you are seeing is the -- manochio being able to explain

weisselberg and his closeness to donald trump and the extent to which she was involved in actually explaining who was the one cutting checks, deborah tarasoff and how those ultimately made their way to the white house while weisselberg was still working for the trump organization, but donald trump was signing the checks from within the oval office. >> chris and vaughn, she's being asked, where did he relocate to? the white house. she had to fedex the checks. >> we heard this before about them fedexing the checks to the white house. there's something strange about the business. they are continuing to do process things about what she did as an executive assistant. we will monitor the testimony. >> she's asked about the checks signed by former president trump. plus, have more of our special coverage coming up of the trump hush money trial in just a moment. stay with us right here on msnbc.

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. oh, yeah, man. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. take it from your inner child. what you really need in life is some freakin' torque. what? the dodge hornet r/t... the totally torqued-out crossover. (restaurant noise)

[announcer] introducing allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. allison! over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. ♪♪

missing out on the things you love because of asthma? get back to better breathing with fasenra, an add-on treatment for eosinophilic asthma that is taken once every 8 weeks. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems or other eosinophilic conditions. allergic reactions may occur. don't stop your asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. step back out there with fasenra. ask your doctor if it's right for you. (bell ringing)

someone needs to customize and save hundreds with liberty mutual! (inaudible sounds) (elevator doors opening) wait, there's an elevator? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ (vo) if you have graves' disease... ...and blurry vision, you need clear answers. people with graves' could also get thyroid eye disease, or t-e-d, which may need a different doctor. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com. her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue.

it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. welcome back. i'm andrea mitchell with chris jansing here as we continue our live coverage of what is going on inside that courtroom. joining us now, barbara mcquade, an msnbc legal analyst. barbara, what we are hearing now is testimony -- or reading testimony, the prosecutor asking rebecca manochio, an assistant

bookkeeper. she was in charge of fedexing checks, once donald trump became president trump and she was fedexing checks from new york to 1600 pennsylvania avenue. she's being asked, the checks you sent down to washington, d.c., were they signed or unsigned? unsigned. what if anything did you receive back from d.c.? they were signed. did you check to see if they were signed? yes. whose signature's was on the check? mr. trump. what would you do if there was something missing? i would reach out to madeleine westerhout. either it got lost or he had questions about it and he had to speak to someone.

westerhout is in the white house. this is the chain of custody establishing that she would be the person to make sure that he had signed those checks, and this is putting him on the checks that, of course, were paid to michael cohen. what's the significance? >> this is some of the most important part of the trial. the part that people find the most interesting, of course, is when someone like stormy daniels is on the stand. i think her testimony was very important because it showed donald trump's motive in trying to keep all of these sordid details out of the public domain. this is really the crux of the case, because it's about the documents themselves that were falsified and donald trump's knowledge about what the real payments were for. sometimes this part of the case can be tedious. but you can tell from the excitement in my voice that i think this is the most important part. i remember taking my father-in-law to watch my history a case that i thought

was exciting. he said, this is so tedious watching that and telling about the document and did you sign and did you do this and that. he wanted it to be like the cop shows on tv where everything gets tied up in great courtroom drama. in fact, this is the part, the nuts and bolts, chain of custody showing the document went from one place to donald trump, signed and returned and the important parts to establishing the story. >> of course, the question is, are the jurors more like your father-in-law or more like you and lawyers who want the jurors to be watching this important part? let's bring in andrew weissmann, nyu law professor, former prosecutor in the mueller investigation. you have been in the overflow room set up for reporters, lawyers like andrew who are contributors with us, as to what's happening. andrew, we are fascinated here,

chris and i. we are reading it. tell us what you think about the cross-examination of stormy daniels. how was she? it reads as though she was aggressive in defending herself. what about the redirect? were they wise to bother with the redirect? chuck rosenberg raised the issue of let it go and say, no further questions, your honor. what do you think? >> first, let me start with as always, barb mcquade has it right. what's going on now is more important than stormy daniels' testimony. it was riveting in the courtroom. the jury doesn't actually even need to believe her story. they just need to know it is the story that donald trump, they could find, wanted to suppress

before the october, then november election, that that was the critical period where he did not want exactly what the jury just heard to come out before the election. that's not really dealing with whether her allegations are true or not. however, getting to how she did on cross, having seen a lot of trials, this witness hit it out of the park. she was not feisty. she was completely unflappable in the face of a very grueling cross-examination. there were many parts where she really came off as a thoughtful, savvy witness who just had so many -- it was the ring of truth. when asked about what happened in the room. the defense lawyer was trying to say, you know, you are trying to

claim that donald trump threatened you and you did this against your will. stormy daniels said, no, not at all. what the defendant did wrong is lie about what happened. i blame myself for what happened in that room. it was just -- it had, i think, for many women, i think for men, too, that just rang so true in terms of this sort of pre me too movement. she was asked about, you are a strong woman. you could have walked out the door. she said, i'm stronger now. i was not stronger then. this is a while ago when she was a younger woman. you got a sense of somebody who has been through the wringer and reflected a lot on this experience and what she's lived

through. >> that brings me to the question of, was there danger in going back on the part of the defense to the details, to the extent they did, of this alleged sexual encounter? maybe it lands with jurors that she's inconsistent, which they tried to point out in some small way, she said this or this. or maybe, in 2024, after the me too movement, jurors get that these situations are very complicated, that people can reassess after they have been in an alleged situation like that and did it look like to you or did you sense anything that might suggest -- i know from the overflow room, you can't see the jury. but that she was -- if badgering is too strong a word but she was going too far with the witness? >> i didn't think she was going too far. her main point and one i think is a legitimate thing to bring

out is, weren't you making lots of money based on this story? it remains for the jury whether she's trying to make money on a true story or off a fake story. they brought out facts about how she's profiting. there was a palpable irony when she was cross-examined about trying to shill for certain merchandise on sell products based on this. all of us in the overflow room were thinking, that's pretty rich for donald trump's lawyer to be making that argument. the other line of cross-examination was about inconsiste inconsistencies. it will be for the jury to decide whether any of those were terribly significant. i think for everyone who is in the media, i think cross-examining somebody based on an interview they gave to a

reporter, either oral or written, is a little unfair. we all know that those are truncate and often educated. on redirect, was it necessary? the prosecutor on redirect made that point. showed that in these interviews, they say, in fact, that they are edited and cut down for size, which was something that stormy daniels had said herself. the other point on redirect that i thought was really significant was that in a later lawsuit that stormy daniels brought against donald trump in california, stormy daniels was asked and brought out that donald trump admitted in that legal proceeding that he repaid michael cohen the $130,000 hush money payment, that he made that representation in court in a

case that stormy daniels had brought. that goes directly to the issue that the witness right now, who is on the stand, that you were talking to barb about, that goes to the fact that donald trump understood that those checks were for exactly what he told a court in california what they were, which was a reimbursement of michael cohen for the hush money payments. >> we have talked about the demeanor of the defense attorney. we have talked about the demeanor of stormy daniels. you are in the overflow room in a unique position that you can see the defense table. you can see donald trump. i was thinking in one of the notes that we got from the producer inside that toward the end of stormy daniels' testimony, her voice was shaking when she was talking about the nasty tweets. i think that's the same area where she was talking about safety issues. what was the demeanor of donald trump through all of this?

as we know, he got into a little trouble with the judge yesterday who felt that he was perhaps intimidating the witness or trying to influence the jury with the comments he was making within earshot of both. >> until we see -- there were a number of sidebars, discussions in private between the lawyers and judge. those may have just been legal issues. we don't know yet whether any of that was directed at a repeat performance of what so rightly irritated the judge yesterday. from what i could see, i did not see donald trump doing anything. again, from my vantage point, you would not have been able to really tell. he did, at times, seem very animated with respect to talking to his counsel. that's to be expected of a defendant who is articulate and has views. there were places in the cross-examination which seemed

like they definitely came from donald trump. i'm not sure they were the wisest strategy as a pure litigation matter. an example is the very famous media post where donald trump says, if you come after me, i'm coming after you. stormy daniels said, i don't know what was in donald trump's mind, but i certainly felt threatened by that. it could have been directed at me. the questioning was, aren't you aware that was directed at a republican pac? i think the reaction in the overflow room was, you have got to be kidding. >> can i interrupt you for a second? i want to go back, andrew, and ask you a pointed question. a couple things i want to note to remind people who may have heard it earlier in the day. when donald trump was coming in, in the hallway, he told people, i think you will see some very

interesting things today. then before court, according to people in court for us, they said that his attorney on the end of the defense table, trump tapped her and spoke with her firmly, pointing his finger at her and waving it slightly. donald trump, it's your impression based on the questions that were being asked today, donald trump, to at least some extent, is influencing the way this defense is being done? >> yes. i did see the conversation between -- you could see donald trump speaking. he did have his finger out. it didn't strike me as ominous or strike me as ominous or angry. no one could hear his -- or i think no one could hear his voice or his tone, but it didn't just from the visual, i think it might be over reading it that he was somehow angry or something

was going wrong. i mean, just remember susan necheles of all of the defense lawyers is the most experienced, and you know, it is -- doing cross is very difficult. i'm not sure everything she did landed, but as a defense lawyer, it would be very rare for every line of cross examination to land, but i really didn't see donald trump in any way sort of acting out or seeming to berate her many some way. >> andrew, i wanted to ask you something that i've been thinking about all day, which is is keith shiller the bodyguard but close associate, very close associate always with donald trump in and out of the oval office seeing and hearing everything, is he going to be called as a witness and here manochio, this junior bookkeeper who's sending checks, fedexing checks is being asked about keith shiller and sending unsigned checks to him at his 5th avenue address. what is your analysis as to

whether he, who was of course standing outside the lake tahoe hotel room and was the person who first asked her mr. trump wants to see you, et cetera, sort of setting that all up, is he going to be a witness, do you think, from the way this is going? >> yeah, so stormy daniels definitely says that he was there, and we all know that as stormy daniels said, they were kind of a unit. it's sort of the keys to the kingdom everything trump. he is his body man. the issue of whether he is a witness, i would think -- and i don't mean to cast any aspersions on him, but i would think if i were his defense lawyer, i would be asserting the fifth amendment, which is his constitutional right and not be testifying voluntarily and, for

instance, you know, he could be. and again, i'm speculating, but he could be a witness to or part of some something that the state or the federal government would view as criminal, and so i don't anticipate that he would testify absent being given immunity, and i don't have any information that he has been afforded that immunity, but i think that would be the only circumstance, and the final piece is just as a former prosecutor, you're very careful about who you immunize both because of where you think they will then be candid and also whether you're immunizing somebody who you'd really rather see as a defendant than somebody who completely skates from all liability. so i guess that's a long way of saying, andrea, i don't know, but i think i'd be a little surprised. >> so jeremy, would you call him? >> i'm not sure if i would call him. i want to get to something

before you ask that question. andrew made a good point about the defense going after stormy daniels about the money that she made and the value, and it certainly is rich you have someone saying this who makes money off these things. there's a double-edged sword off that line of cross examination. if there's value to it to donald trump, what's the next line of thought? he needed to shut that down because the value would hurt him. there's an incentive here, and there's a reason why. she had damaging information. if wasn't damaging, true or not, if it wasn't damaging, why do you care? so if it is damaging, it's worth some money, then that follows the theory of the prosecution as to why donald trump needed to shut this down and how it impacted -- >> let us not forget the t-shirt with his picture, his mug shot from when he was indicted. that won't come into evidence. >> that was from the georgia indictment. >> right, but still, i mean, you're talking about him making

money -- >> the point is whether it was $130,000 that she received in a settlement agreement, whether it was doing peacock, there was value to it. if there's value to it, it's damage to -- >> the only question i would ask you, jeremy, it could hurt him, but they have to prove it hurt him because of the election, not because of melania and the family. >> that's the whole point. but i think you'd be -- i don't think it's going to hold much water. i've used the term before, the colander, to say he's doing this from allegedly an adulter with a child from another woman during marriage, marla maples. it is what it is. whether it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a different animal. >> would you call schiller? >> i wouldn't. he would have to be immunized. >> i'm not sure. i'm not 100%, but i'm going to lean to i wouldn't. >> there you go. >> thanks to all of you, we have reporters and analysts insides

courthouse, outside the courthouse, they'll be all joining us. andrew, thank you. jeremy and catherine are staying with us. next, when we're back with more of our special coverage as chris and i follow every moment of the trump hush money trial with you. the trump hush money with you (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. >> tech: does your windshield have a crack?

trust safelite. this customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home... ...so he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... then we got to work. we replaced his windshield... ...and installed new wipers to protect his new glass. >> customer: looks great. thank you. >> tech: my pleasure. >> vo: we come to you for free. schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. 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. it's never a good time for migraine, especially when i'm on camera. that's why my go-to is nurtec odt. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. it's the only migraine medication that helps treat & prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt.

allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. people depend on me. without a migraine, i can be there for them. talk to your doctor about nurtec odt today.

you wanted money. that phrase repeated multiple