resume. more special coverage. stay with us. stay with us (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.

to quote stormy daniels, when somebody attacks me, i'm going to defend myself. those were some of the final words from the adult film star before she was excused from the stand in donald trump's hush money trial.

it is good to be back with you. i'm chris jansing, alongside my colleague, andrea mitchell. defense lawyer suggested she was trying to extort him, and capitalizing on his fame with merchandise, prosecutors for their part pointing out that daniels was the target of nasty, threatening tweets for even coming forward about an alleged affair with donald trump. they asked daniels been telling the truth net positive or net negative in your life. daniels' response, negative. >> over the next hour, we'll bring you live updates from the courtroom, the latest witness who will be back after the lunch break, a bookkeeper at the trump organization who handled checks, including of course the key checks, the ones in question in this hush money case. so let's bring in the panel joining us now, nbc national news correspondent yasmin vossoughian who's outside the

courthouse for us. and also with us, "new york times" chief white house correspondent and msnbc political analyst, peter baker, and here in the studio, two former manhattan assistant d.a.s, catherine christian and msnbc legal analyst and jeremy saland, criminal defense attorney. >> the jury went from cross-examination and redirect of stormy daniels, the key figure in the case, not legally but sort of dramatically, theatrically to an assistant bookkeeper, a young woman who worked in a supermarket before she was hired by the trump organization, and then found herself sending checks, blank checks by fedex to have 1600 pennsylvania avenue. >> and in many ways she's a more important witness than ms. daniels was because this is a falsifying business records case. and if the prosecution has this jury and the jury room debating about whether or not donald

trump had sex with that woman, that's a problem. they need to be focused in on did he know what michael cohen was doing. was michael cohen rogue. did he know what cohen and weisselberg were up to. that's what they should be focusing in, not the hotel room. what happened at the trump organization and what happened at trump tower that david pecker talked about. >> maybe that's what the defense wants. maybe the defense would love it, jeremy, if that's what the jury went back in and talked about. they spent the first day talking about whether or not there actually really ever was a real sexual encounter. >> that helps them. the theory in large part is donald trump, he's a principal, also an accomplice. it's being involved hands on and furthering this conspiracy and this crime. but absolutely to your point, it absolutely helps the defense if this gets a distraction or a sex crime. it's not a sex crime. it's irrelevant. we were discussing how we had the doorman making up a story about a child, which ultimately is not true.

doesn't make a difference. you made the payment because you thought it was going to hurt you. >> let's go back to the heart of the case, there are 34 felony charges here, and they really go, the question is raised, they were put in as legal expenses. is that a falsification of business records. how does this witness who's going to come back on the stand now in ten minutes or so get us there for the prosecution? >> she helps establish the authentication, legal word, that each of these 11 checks that donald trump signed, are authentic, gets them into evidence, and there's ledger entries and invoices. those are the 34 counts, checks, ledger entries and invoices, and did donald trump and the jury is going to be instructed. did he make or cause to be made a false entry in the trump organization business records and did he do it with the intent to defraud. >> sounds like that could go quickly.

>> that's the crime. >> what does the defense do? do they go after her or try to shake her reaction to the checks? we all know that signature? >> absolutely. they're going to try to make sure that the chain of custody occurred, and she was the person who sent it, and thinks she sent it fedex. >> that could take five minutes. this is not going to go the same route as stormy daniels. she's here for process. >> where do you go next? you've got her, do you have to go now to, you know, madeleine westerhout in the white house, handling the checks. is there a chain here? >> there absolutely is a chain, and i would not be ending that chain with michael cohen. someone's going to be -- michael cohen is going to come at some point obviously, hooeks not -- he's not going to be the end. much of this is spinning the wheels. what's the big show, what are we doing here. i understand what we're going to have to try to figure out, and

we understand there's a burden they're going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. >> do you need to do that before the weekend? >> i think this case is stat, long winded, too much. >> has the prosecution made its case yet, how do they get to that point? >> not yet. >> there is no michael cohen, there's no case. >> what's the hole he fills and who else might help fill it? >> donald trump knew. i wasn't a rogue actor, he told me to pay her off. he knew about allen and i were going to characterize these falsely. that's the falsified business records as legal expenses, and this was done, here's the crime, in order to influence the election because we needed to keep this information away from the electorate. >> that's how simple this is. >> the defense attorney is like

let's talk about the hotel room. >> do either of you think there's any scenario, depending on what happens with michael cohen, is there any scenario donald trump would take the witness stand? >> i can't see it. that would be lunacy. >> if there is not a case made, he's made the case for the prosecution. he would be a fool to get on that stand. his attorneys would be as well. >> i'll go to yasmin on this. our lisa rubin noted just a short time ago that stormy daniels seemed more prepared today. she was constantly asking, show me where i said that, and then there was this moment, and she even said at one point, you're trying to trick me into saying something that's not entirely true. how do you think the tone of her testimony changed, if at all, over these two days? >> reporter: it changed tremendously. she seemed unflappable. she was completely prepared. at one point she was turned towards the jury, addressing

susan necheles in cross-examination, but her body turned toward the jury, confidently, by the way. not only from her demeanor, but the way in which she looked seemed more prepared, more relaxed as well. it's not like there can be any kind of preparation. she's in the middle of the system with the attorneys from the prosecution. nonetheless, she was asking for backup for much of the evidence put forward by susan necheles. if you look back to tuesday, that was not something that was happening at all. she was stammering a lot. she was chided repeatedly by judge juan merchan on tuesday, who said repeatedly to her, answer the question precisely, looked to him for guidance. didn't know if she should continue on or not. today she seemed prepared at times, as if she was addressing donald trump, i was told, directly, despite the fact that she doesn't have a direct line.

there is about a 2 feet blockage where she's sitting to where donald trump is sitting at the defense table. in certain instances, as susan necheles was cross examining her. by the way, correct me if i'm wrong, to the attorneys on the panel, this is something that prosecutors would want from their witness who was up there being cross examined by susan necheles. one other note i want to make as you were talking about the importance of the witness who will be returning to the stand. i think one of the things that's so important. she completes the circle, right, the way i have been looking at this is kind of like a factory line. you have someone cutting the checks in trump tower. you have the person cutting the checks, taking those checks all the way to rhona graff to be signed by donald trump or taken to rebecca, faxing checks to

madeleine westerhout, getting the checks over to donald trump, and those to be subsequently shipped back, fedexed back to trump power, completing the kind of circle and why it is. kind of these witnesses that are not as dramatic, right, are so wildly important to the prosecution's case. >> and, peter, let's talk about donald trump whom you've written a book about, you're writing another book about. you know him so well. was rick scott there because this was part of his audition for running mate or whatever, whether that would even ever happen, whether he would fit nit any of the categories being from florida. is that rick scott or donald trump that needs a validator. can't have family members in a case like this, and wanted somebody to speak for him, because he's so upset about the gag order. >> yeah, i mean, you heard him say time and time again the last

few weeks that the area around the courthouse is shut down. where are my supporters, where are my people, where the validators, as you rightly said. having a prominent republican senator come to court means exactly that. we are still with the nominee of our party, that he is not alone in this, and i'm sure that's something that matters to former president trump, no question about it. as you say, such an awkward thing about the family, given the nature of the testimony certainly we have seen today and the last testimony on tuesday about the, you know, cheating on his wife. he denies it of course. that's painful to a family where there's been a lot of history there of course. you're not going to see a lot of that in there. and so he's looking for political help. it includes rick scott, this is a court case happening in the middle of a high stakes election. we've never seen anything like this. we are looking for ways to play to the audience inside the

courtroom and writ large. >> we have this split screen yesterday where the president of the united states was in wisconsin, an all important battleground state, where the republicans are going to have a national convention. he's giving out, you know, economic benefits, and speaking directly now as he's really ramped up his direct mocking of the president, of the former president, his rival, mocking the president -- donald trump's presidency for having come there and promised something on the site of a business that was never built and saying they had a ground breaking with gold shovels and those gold shovels were digging a hole, and he might as well keep digging that hole. he's really going after him and meanwhile, donald trump is as he would say, trapped in a courtroom. although, it was wednesday, and not a court day, but he was down in mar-a-lago raising money. >> so president biden is playing

politics in the conventional way in a year that's anything but conventional. it is conventional, normal to see an incumbent president of the united states visit a battle ground state and say here are the things i'm doing, here's money i'm giving away based on legislation i have passed. here are the ways i'm making your life better and the other guys isn't doing it. this is politics has worked 101 for many years. we're not in a normal year. we're in a very unconventional year. people are locked into their voting habits at this point, and changing the minds of a small number of people open for debate is more of a challenge. you are seeing president biden going at president trump in a way he was reluctant to do for the first three years of his presidency. being willing to attack him by name, not just calling him the former guy, and by mocking him not just on his record -- >> here he is. peter, let me interrupt.

donald trump walking back in, not stopping to take questions from reporters. all business now, going after the lunch break. peter, i interrupted you. finish your thought there. >> again, i was just saying he's willing president biden to mocker former president trump not just on his record but personal characteristics in a way that sounds more trumpian than biden like. mocking trump for his hair, mocking him for sleeping or falling asleep during court. really having a little bit of fun in a way that has not been his style up until now. and maybe certainly galvanizes democratic voters. i don't know if it changes minds, but at least it gets his own supporters, you know, worked up and into the program. >> peter baker, thank you so much. it's always great to talk to you. we've got a 90 second break coming up. we are moments away from testimony resuming in lower manhattan. you're watching msnbc special coverage of the trump hush money trial. always dry scoop before you run.

listen to me, the hot dog diet got me shredded. it's time we listen to science. one a day is formulated with key nutrients to support whole body health. one a day. science that matters. nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. the future is not just going to happen. you have to make it. and if you want a successful business, all it takes is an idea, and now becomes the future. a future where you grew a dream into a reality. it's waiting for you. mere minutes away.

the future is nothing but power and it's all yours. the all new godaddy airo. get your business online in minutes with the power of ai. we are back and so is the hush money trial you saw moments ago, donald trump walking back into court, and we are being told by our folks again who are putting stuff into our document in realtime that donald trump entered with his defense team, he was looking at the gallery, motioning to someone, as we told you, there are people there familiar to him, among them jeanine pirro, and senator rick scott, the prosecution team is

arriving now, but it may be worth looking at catherine and jeremy, what juan merchan said just before we went into break. they're only going until 4:00 today with the jury, but then he's going to take up several issues related to the preclusion of testimony. they also mentioned mcdougal, who i assume is the second woman who has made accusations against donald trump, and to whom hush money was paid, but who is not at the heart of this case. what would be the back and forth, do you imagine, about this possible witness, karen mcdougal. >> what the defense is arguing, and probably going to wave the court of appeals decision of harvey weinstein in front of the judge, she's too prejudice, the payoff, the $130,000 is part of the concealing of the crime.

ms. mcdougal, it's relevant, it's not overly prejudicial, he's not charged with that payoff but the defense is going to argue, we have had ms. daniels on direct exam go all into sexual positions and sex acts. now we're going to have another woman come and do that, and he's not even charged with that particular payoff, which ami made. so i'm assuming that's what defense is going to argue, and you better believe you're going to hear the harvey weinstein court of appeals decision. >> this is important now because laura jarrett is now confirming for us the defense says it is going to renew its previous motion for a mistrial, which goes to exactly what you were talking about, catherine, the fact that all details came in, but what could they say differently before judge merchan that they didn't before. why would they be renewing a motion for recall. >> whether it annoys the judge, it is what it is, it's your job

to advocate for the people of new york or the federal government, whatever it may be, but what they are going to argue is that it's not just prejudicial but establishing a theory of propensity that this guy is a serial sex abuser and therefore he can't be trusted and therefore he's guilty. one of the strongest arguments you can make against this information is not just completing a narrative that the prosecutor wants you to believe and give to a jury, there's this prejudicial propensity, defining my client as this person. and we've seen that it's been side tracked. some of it has to do with the defense's own line of questioning, they have to take ownership and their failure to object to take ownership, but allowing mcdougal to take the stand and risk the same thing. there's a warm front if you can side track the jury enough, they can say, do we believe the women and take them away from the falsification of business records, but that's a major risk. so you are fighting to keep that out because it's not just a

narrative, it's my client is bad and has a propensity to do terrible things. >> do they actually think they can get it or more fodder for them potentially on appeal? >> i think it's both. absolutely on appeal, but you're going to make it and renew that argument because you have a witness who's coming, and you want to keep her off the staff. >> yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse. weigh in on all of this. on the defense trying to keep karen mcdougal off the stand and out of this case? >> reporter: there's a couple of things. the issue of renewing is to set up for an appeal. to remind folks where we are on this, when we came back from lunch on tuesday, they asked for a mistrial because of what they saw was prejudicial testimony from stormy daniels. judge juan merchan said we're not there yet, by the way this

is on you, you didn't call for objections as many times i thought you should have. there were times where judge merchan said sustained to his own objection, feeling the defense should have called for objections. they were going to also going over limiting instructions. to tell folks what that is, they would decide on what parts of the testimony could be reviewed by and considered by the jury, especially when it came to deliberations. if they were to ask for, for instance, to go over a certain point of stormy daniels' testimony, they felt the details in the ways in which that night in 2006 has gone down, the details were left out. that would be redacted from the testimony that the jury would review. the likelihood of him granting a mistrial today at 4:00 p.m., and reviewing or renewing this motion from the defense i think is very unlikely because nothing

new has come up. by the way, to add to it, in cross-examination from susan necheles, she brought up the extraneous details. the details of what happens on that night, after they met on the celebrity golf tournament. that may inhibit the judge agrees to a mistrial, and some of the things they want to include in the limiting instructions, guys. >> and yasmin, as we have been speaking, the court has resumed with rebecca on the stand. she was weisselberg's assistant. she was a junior bookkeeper, sending checks, fedexing them to the white house, and she is being cross examined now by necheles, the defense lawyer, and she's saying, you worked for the trump organization for eleven years. yes. is it a nice place to work. yes. mr. trump is the only person who can sign personal checks, right?

necheles asks, it was all of the checks for personal expenses. yes. it was no business expenses being sent. right, yes. necheles says because the business once he became president had nothing to do with him. correct. personal expenses were like credit card expenses, his daughter who was in college, he was the only person who could sign. necheles says you got return envelopes and these were personal bills that had to be paid promptly. manochio, yes. they're trying to separate what manochio was doing was on the personal side, nothing to do with the trump organization. these were personal expenses, the michael cohen checks. try to make some defense. >> except this witness worked for the trump organization and the this was done in the trump

organization. so, you know, it's -- she's probably, ms. necheles, again, trying to find one or two jurors. that's not really going to play that this was personal even though it was done by my trump employee, in my trump organization, in my business. >> didn't he, peter, baker, refresh my memory. wasn't there a limited trust? he wasn't supposed to be involved in trump organizations, his son was supposed to be running the company, right, when he was president of the united states? >> it was always a murky thing. in fact, he was still in charge. he never fully put it into a blind trust or took any of the pressures that previous presidents took to separate themselves from the business coming into office. jimmy carter did with the farm, for instance. he never fully disengaged from

the business. that was a unique moment in presidential history. he profited from a lot of things that happened during the presidency, people staying at hotels and deals made overseas. i think that sort of comes back around. if he wasn't disengaged from t then he was responsible for the things happening in that office. >> i want to bring in former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst, carol lam. who brings to the conversation a unique perspective as a former superior judge. i'm going to go back into the document and get your reaction. they're talking, susan necheles is talking to the bookkeeper about the time that she was working for the trump organization but sending checks to be signed to the white house. and she says, do you know whether it took a long time for the white house to process personal mail for the president and get it to him? no. you work for the bookkeeper?

yes. after president trump went to the white house, president trump and allen weisselberg didn't speak at all. earlier she said that they spoke every day, that they were on the phone talking. you were asked about how much weisselberg worked with president trump, do you remember that, and you said every day. correct. why is that important for the defense to say okay, well, he was in touch with the cfo every single day before, but once he went to the white house, they didn't speak at all. that was the question. did they speak at all? >> sure, chris, and one of the things that the defense is probably trying to build up to here is that the president had a lot of things on his desk and on his mind, and he was just signing these checks because someone put them in front of him and said sign these checks. i suspect that could be a line of defense here, but the problem is that we're really talking about events that happened in

2017, and we have already heard evidence that donald trump was a bit of a penny pincher when it came to spending his own money on things, and so this amount of money, it's an extraordinarily large amount of money for a $130,000 debt. he's paying $420,000 to include paying the taxes for michael cohen and such, that it's simply implausible that the former president would sign off on multiple checks without raising an issue or question, if you didn't know the purpose of the checks. >> so manochio is off the stand as of 12/25, and this is where the document will get to you, because it said the people call for about a minute now. who makes sense for it to be? >> i think another witness in the assembly line, also known as the chain of custody.

i'm going to say, it's not going to be michael cohen. watch it be him. it's not going to be him. it's going to be another person in the chain of custody. >> my understanding of a chain of custody is you have to be able to actually say it wasn't somewhere else. for example, was it sitting somewhere where someone else could have accessed it, right? if you're sending by fedex, can you establish a chain of custody. do you know where it is at all times? is that considered to be a legitimate chain of custody? >> she didn't say oh, my gosh, i got it, and it was tampered with. it came to her. she gave it to shiler. the reason was susan necheles was very sport, when she said weisselberg and trump did not speak after he went in the white house, all 34 counts occurred after they went in the white house. i wasn't speaking to allen and

cohen when i was in the white house. >> you think it's someone of that order. >> some of these witnesses are fungible, a little out of order, it's okay. we're waiting for the big show, michael cohen. while we're waiting, it's important that the people are understanding how the process works. once they're done with the direct case, the defense will have another opportunity to renew their arguments to have the case dismissed. every defense attorney does that, will make a motion to dismiss a trial order of dismissal, the prosecution, most favorable to them had not established the elements necessary. this is not the last we have heard of these arguments from the defense. >> what we're now seeing is that the next witness is tracy menzies of monmouth county, new jersey, who works at harpers collins book publishing. >> this is interesting. remember, we didn't talk a lot

about this, but there was a previous witness who was involved in donald trump's books he wrote, how to be a billionaire. how to talk like whatever. he has had a whole series of books, and the prosecution tried to pull things out. >> valuable. >> go ahead. it didn't show him in necessarily the best light. >> she was more important than stormy daniels. >> the defense tried to say they could have been ghost written or written by someone else. they were not provable quotes by him. >> which always raises the question, donald trump, the center of his universe, was his name. the center of his universe was being able to use that name for his financial benefit, for his personal ego benefit. so the argument that was made on the other side is that he would never put something out there that did not represent that image that he wanted to present

or things that he wanted to put out there. given what we know of the previous testimony of an editor, why bring back someone else who's with harper collins. >> there's likely to be more anecdotes or pulling from these articles or stories about how he paid close attention to detail, to how he's involved in his finances. we heard mcconney was fired because the week before there was a decrease in the cash flow, how attentive he was. i think it's very valuable, and we heard of the term ghost writing. i don't know if it was speaking with you earlier about it. michael cohen is the ghost writer of the fraud. >> vaughn hillyard outside the courthouse. talk to us about this line of questioning, tracy menzies from harper collins, compelled to testify, so someone under subpoena, and the general

counsel for harper collins, which is a major publishing house, is in the courtroom representing. >> right. this is exactly if you're a vp of a publishing company, you anticipate on a thursday. the second one that gets to do this wonderful task before donald trump and the witness stand, reading directly out of one of his books. read cross america day, usually those are dr. seuss books. right now what we're doing is think big, make it happen in business and life, another book here by donald trump, and this is where the publisher is going through there here, and we could expect beginning to read part of this. we are just getting at the fact where the publisher is acknowledging here about obtaining a copy of the book. we're going to have to give it a few moments to see what passages they read through. and you were also talking about karen mcdougal, if i may bring it back, as we wait to see what

witnesses they bring forward, karen mcdougal remains of interest because of the stormy daniels' testimony in january of 2007 meeting, that stormy daniels talked about, being invited to a trump event. if you have a karen mcdougal come n she would be able to corroborate that meeting with donald trump, getting to the idea of motive here. so much of this is, you know, with every witness that comes by, it's building on a story that maybe was very disparate in the minds of jurors, who could be hearing the stormy daniels saga for some time. all of us have been hearing about it for eight years. this could be building out a narrative in the jurors' minds and reading more passages from books like this could potentially help them have a better understanding of who trump is. >> apparently there were

redactions in this book. this publisher, and there were two authors, there's a ghost writer or someone who helped him with the book or he dictated it to. but in this case, he's being asked, she, rather. the publisher, tracy menzies, she's being asked about redactions. this is the manuscript that is also being questioned, and she's being asked, did you have opportunity to compare nonredacted versions, and that is now being introduced into evidence. this is going on to who are the other authors, trump and bill zanker, what is this, and it's the title page of the book. this is for celebrity authors who are not writers themselves. talk about donald trump's books and how big a part of his

popularity, his business model is his publishing. >> right. it was the books. it was also the board game, the art of the deal board game, this was part of the marketing of the character of donald trump. most of america was not looking at the financial yearly documents that would be come piled by trump portion, and most didn't get to see trump tax returns until recently. so much of what they knew about donald trump, the names on buildings, but also the books and the way he marketed himself is a personality. the idea of a businessman. of course so much of that was called into question by attorney general letitia james here in new york. it's part of her prosecution that led to the civil trial, $500 million fine that he is currently working through payments of. and so for him, and these books here, he uses descriptions that are very, let's see, i want to

make sure we get this accurately, they are very bigger than life, declarative, kind of the how to. if you want to go and make money in the world. if you want to go and be somebody who is, you know, arranging big sales, real estate, this is how you do it. >> i'm going to interrupt you for a second, if i can, vaughn, because i think we're getting to a key part of the testimony, and i'm going to ask our folks here to talk about that. in addition to the fact that they're pointing out that there are two authors, one is donald trump. they asked about redactions. they also asked is there a way to tell which sections are by which author. there was a question previously, with the previous witness about whether or not this really was what donald trump was saying or he was thinking, so is there a way to tell which sections are by which author? yes, it is donald trump's words in the writing in a sera font,

to tell which author was speaking. >> these are donald trumps words, that he checks the invoices for decorators, he knows about the paper clips. >> and this is the manuscript. >> and he clearly micro manages this manuscript. there's no way cohen went rogue. >> they're showing the cover of the book, but they're also showing in people's exhibit 415 a, an interior piece, a chapter with the title "do not trust anyone," who is it attributed to. mr. trump. do not trust anyone, i used to say go out and get the best people, which is very

interesting because as you well know -- >> michael cohen. >> he promised when he was running for president, he would only bring the best people into the white house. they clearly are looking for, and we have talked about this from the very beginning, you're going to hear from people like stormy daniels. you're going to hear from people like michael cohen. there are going to be things that are very compelling. certainly stormy daniels was compelling. in the end, this case may welcome down to what people can see physically. this piece of paper says these are donald trump's words, as you say. >> weaponizing his own words against himself, back at him. >> all right reading from part of the book, i get the best people, don't trust them. as a matter of fact, i value loyalty above everything else, more than brains, more than drive, more than anything. i think the reason we have so many loyal people is that we reward loyalty. now, that to, you know, peter

baker has been here and vaughn, and any of us who have covered donald trump, chris, you have certainly, loyalty is the number one thing he values. i know cases where people were kept from being, you know, major figures in the state department in his presidency because the previous spring they had written one newspaper column a little bit critical of donald trump when he was still a candidate, and there was still a primary going on, and they never got that job, even though the secretary of state and the defense secretary and the national security adviser had recommended that person and the personnel director. loyalty is number one. >> it's entirely problematic to donald trump, that gives credence and credibility to the witnesses who talk out against him. and those who speak on his behalf, it takes a chin out of their armour. if anyone is speaking out against him, they know it means

a lot. >> how does it cut with michael cohen. >> there's no way in the world they would have done this behind his back. >> and both went to jail for him. >> and yes, michael cohen is upset now and hates him, but at the time he was loyal to him, and did what he wanted. >> it elevates michael cohen. >> the reason we have so many loyal people is we reward loyalty. everybody knows this. it has become part of the culture of the trump organization. 415d, i can't stomach disloyalty. i put people who are loyal to me on a high pedestal and take care of them very well. i go out of my way. this woman, i'm not quite sure who they were referencing here, but this woman was very disloyal, and now i go out of my way to make her life miserable. peter bakerer -- baker, any man

around him knows about loyalty. rick scott is in that courtroom today. it's worth remembering. we talked about this earlier, even though they're not getting the actual tape, they have gotten the transcript of now that infamous moment with billy bush where he talks about grabbing women, and when you're famous, they let you do it, and after that, everybody just about thought his campaign was dead. they distanced themselves from him. they wanted nothing to do with him, and yet most of those people have come back to him now. it will be interesting to see what happens depending on what the outcome of this. >> let me add one sentence. >> this woman was disloyal, and now i go out of my way to make her life miserable. my motto is always get even. when someone screws you, screw

them back in spades. getting even is not a personal thing. it's just part of doing business. >> that's not a ghost writer. that was all donald trump. >> you didn't need anything to determine that, peter? >> i think you can pretty much say that's donald trump, and he has expressed that so many times, so many settings, you don't have to rely on this quote even. that's his way of looking at the world. you are on my team or you are not, and the truth with him is loyalty has been a one way street. a lot of people would tell you, he's not that for them. he's happy to cast you aside if he decides he no longer needs you or no longer thinks you are useful to him. loyalty is entirely about, you know, fealty to donald trump 100%, and that's more than policy, more than ideology, more than partisanship, more than family, it's all about that with him. >> and right now, todd blanche

has started cross examining tracey menzies, the were you part of the publishing of this particular book? she was not on this book. he's asked covers in books are designed and developed to help sell the book, they help sell books, but they are associated closely with the author is the answer. you were shown six pages. yes. it's not unusual that this book has acknowledgments, not usual, correct. then there's an acknowledgment of meredith, i'm not sure where they're going there. i want to bring in former u.s. attorney and seasoned trial lawyer who has represented fortune 500 companies, executives and white collar criminal defense matters. so the importance of this publisher identifying that this, indeed, is the book that harper

collins published, coauthored, one of the authors, donald trump, and as peter baker pointed out, any one of us who has covered donald trump knows that is his language, paul. >> it certainly is, andrea, and it's another example of what i would say is a skillful and even artful way for the prosecution to present the evidence. remember, of course, former president trump has a fifth amendment right, he doesn't have to testify. and whether or not any defense attorney would even allow someone like former president trump to testify is a huge question. the prosecution is able to use his own words, and put his own words in front of the jury in a way that corroborates and assists the prosecution in a way that presents its theme and evidence. so far they know and understand things can change quickly because they're experienced prosecutors. they have done a great job, and ironically one of the best advocates for the prosecution

here has been donald trump himself and his own words. >> let me ask you about what we just learned, we were waiting to see the next witness, madeleine westerhout, the person at the white house who would have gotten these checks. she was someone who sat in close proximity to the president of the united states. she knew everything that was going on. what would you expect the prosecution to want to get from her? >> more corroboration, chris, on chain of custody. as multiple folks said here today, chain of custody is absolutely critical, and chain of custody is oftentimes in trials that take place throughout the country, a stipulated fact. defense attorneys will agree, will stipulate, these are the checks. these are now the checks mutual fun -- moved. the prosecution is putting these on, and these prosecutors that put on these witnesses in a very stayed, calm way, and that's going to assist them in

understanding the methodical way in which these checks were passed, received. donald trump's signature went on them. critical to the case, credible witnesses, good evidence for the prosecution so far. >> paul, thank you so much. peter baker, jump in here. the next witness is madeleine westerhout. you knew she was the executive assistant right outside the oval office. she was present, of course, when he met in the oval office with michael cohen. she also had come from trump tower as the greeter. tell me about madeline westerhout. she was, in fact, right there at all times for a couple of years outside the oval office, saw everything that was happening. she cried when president trump won the election, had to be talked into coming to the white house by reince priebus. he wanted her to be his eyes and ears in the oval office suite

for him. she was very -- she expressed a great deal of admiration, being enamored with president trump. she got in trouble because she told tables at a school about how he had said unpleasant things about his own children, and he fired her at that point. she then went on and wrote a memoir that was very very gushing, apologizing for her role. in that book, her observations were telling in small ways. she described a tempestuous president who was volatile. and said your daughter ivanka is on the phone. he was talking with ivanka, and she comes in to say rupert murdoch was on the phone, do i

tell him you'll call him back. never put him on hold. it's a great moment, that you understand what was important to him. head of fox news. she's very loyal person, considered herself loyal to him. saw and heard a lot of things. if she tells what she knows, it will be helpful. >> she's under subpoena, though, chris. >> she knows a lot but she is under subpoena, and again, even though she's somebody who got fired saying she had a better relationship with donald trump than his own daughters, and saying not flattering things about those daughters, how do you approach a witness like this who even though donald trump was done with her as peter just pointed out, wrote a largely flattering book and doesn't want to be here. >> for the prosecution, you get the facts, the same way for rhona graff. she's very important. who was going in and out,

particularly michael cohen, she can confirm and corroborate details. the defense will be gentle on cross. i know she was fired, that she thinks donald trump is a loyal, good guy. they just want facts from her to corroborate michael cohen when he said i went to the white house x amount of times sfl . >> she's talking about her biography. she got a full-time job at the rnc. they're asking her to explain what that is, the republican national committee that helps elect republicans up and down the ballot. it's the org that runs the republican party. yes, i think it's fair to say. that's the organization that runs the republican party. she worked for the rnc's finance director after 2014. her boss who was finance director was promoted. she became an assistant. she talks about sort of going up the chain until she lands herself presumably in the white house, but then we get to in

october 2016, did you become aware of the "access hollywood" tape. yes, it was the tape of mr. trump and billy bush having a conversation. what impact did it have? at the time i recall it rattling rnc leadership. did rnc consider replacing trump as a candidate? there were conversations about how to, if it was needed, how it would be possible to replace him as a candidate if it came to that. was mr. trump ultimately the gop candidate? yes, he was. but what she establishes somebody again, who was there under subpoena, what she establishes is what all of us from reporting knew, which is that even at that moment, it wasn't clear there were people who believed he shouldn't be the nominee of the republican party. >> and what's interesting here is that reince priebus, one of

the people loyal to donald trump, this is not, you know, the speaker of the house, paul ryan who was publicly critical, reince priebus, she's acknowledging when they had conversations about replacing them. they're making point that thchs a serious thing, at least initially. >> she's wearing a lot of hats for the prosecution. she's coming under subpoena. she's republican. he's not a democratic that he can go after. she's corroborating the impact of this recording and this video tape. but she also potentially can touch on to the defense of i'm trying to protect my family, when she says it's not my family he liked more, he liked me more, and these are the reasons why. and anecdotes of rupert murdoch. a support at the same time. a very valuable witness. >> here she's describing her background and her jobs, and she says, he asks, did you get a

nickname in the media. yes, i was the greeter girl. did you work with rhona graff. >> one of the things that's interesting, when she spent time as the greeter girl in trump tower, she was one of the people who scheduled high level interviews with people interviewing for cabinet positions or senior staff roles. to the point of really her having many halts at that point, peter baker, she was someone who did have her finger in a lot of different pies, and was able to be witness to many things that were happening at an incredibly intense and tense time surrounding donald trump. >> absolutely. that's the thing in any white house. and andrea, of course you know

that from having covered it for so long. basically there are people there who may be invisible to the outside world, who are really key players and positions in remarkable polices to see what's going on, and she was one of them obviously, right, cassidy hutchinson was one of them outside the chief of staff's office at a critical moment january 6th and the weeks prior to that. they end up becoming important witnesses because they are the eyes and ears in a way, and may not be policy participants, but they understand what's happening. you're showing pictures of her with rick perry, the former governor of texas, became secretary of energy. she knew all the members of the cabinet. they knew her. she knew the vice president, the chief of staff, she knew all of these people. she understand what was happening, and who came in and out. who the president wanted to see and didn't want to see. these were key. she tells an anecdote in her book that i find revealing. she talks about how mike pence, the vice president at the time was so eager to always be in the

room with the president that he would wait for him at the elevator when the president came down in the morning and asked to escort him to the oval office. they would scheme about how to get him ouch there, and she would take a note into the oval office, and hand it to mike pence, your wife called and is wondering when you're coming home for dinner. mike, you should go. don't linger here. take care of your wife. she's the kind of person who is in on that kind of, you know, very intimate moments in a presidency. >> peter baker, this narrative, it's so many young people who come to washington, stars in their eyes, they work on the hill as an intern. they end up in the democratic or republican national committee and end up as she says, she didn't care she was called the greeter girl by the media. i knew i was going to sit outside the oval office, and i didn't care what my title was. you can believe it, she was seeing history. when any of us walk through the

gates, chris was a white house correspondent. i was. peter is now. you feel such a sense of awe and responsibility in history no matter what is happening that you are a reporter. >> the proximity to history and power are very powerful things. i want to bring in julie blackmon, who has worked on criminal cases, so i'm curious about a couple of things we know so far about madeleine westerhout. one was she did clearly have this proximity to power but also she said very early in her testimony that she's there under subpoena. how is a jury likely to view those pieces of information? >> i think anytime someone says they're under subpoena there's a suggestion that they would rather not be there but i think even in a broader way, the witnesses we're seeing today speak to the rhythm of the trial

overall. the specifics of the testimony of the witnesses who go by quickly. from an emotional perspective for the jurors, they're a break from the intensity of stormy daniels. lots of salaciousness. a change from hope hicks who we want wept on the stand. it's an open question and important question for the attorneys to consider as they begin to write their summations and attempt to account for the testimony taken as a whole from all of the witnesses to help the jurors understand which of these witnesses are providing significant relevant insight. and you can see i emphasize the world relevant, you can imagine the defense and prosecution will have different points of view

about what's truly relevant, what bears on the verdict questions that the jurors will be asked to address. >> right now, the exhibit that's now being introduced into evidence is a map of the floor plan of the west wing of the white house, and unlike the west wing that lawrence o'donnell helped produce and write and all the other shows we've seen, it's very small. it's an 18th century building, basically, although it was burnt down and rebuilt after the war in 1812. it's very small. she's being shown this map of the west wing and the prosecutor is asking her to point out where the oval office is on the map, and it's quite obvious because it's the only oval on the building. sort of laugh. and she's being asked to point out where her desk was. my desk was the bottom right of the square against the horizontal line. if you look at it like a square,

my desk is bottom right. did anybody sit closer than you did. not in the first few months no. hope hicks was the communications director. john, we have heard the body guard was more than a body guard and a close friend. always with the president. had that very intimate relationship. john mccentee. this is the cast of characters. this is going to place michael cohen in the oval office for these critical meetings. >> when you talk about the rhythm of a trial, based on my experience, people are interested in people and their experiences insides white house, so that after a long day may get

the jury's attention. we only have about 30 seconds left. but just ending it at 4:00 and not extending days, giving them full lunch breaks, is that a benefit that jurors are not intensively necessarily in testimony all day long, and well past 4:00. >> and every week they have wednesday off, and next week they have wednesday and friday off, and the week after that, they have monday and wednesday off. it makes the jurors' lives better, and for the judge, that's a good thing. and actually for both sides it's a good thing. >> they're not dozing off. >> exactly. >> i'm going to end with this one thing. she is asking westerhout, when did you start your job and did you have any training or education. she said not formally, no, but we already know donald trump valued loyalty over everything. that's going to do it this hour. thanks for joining us on a historic day, i'm