gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

happy friday, it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york, and donald trump's hush money trial just resuming this morning with a former trump white house aide facing cross examination. madeleine westerhout back on the stand, she's testified about trump signing checks and michael cohen visiting the white house. and speaking of cohen, we just learned that the prosecution's star witness will take the stand on monday. nbc's vaughn hillyard is outside the courthouse for us. also with us our legal panel for the hour white collar defense attorney and former federal prosecutor sarah krisoff, and criminal defense attorney bernard via low na. vaughn, catch us up. what's happening inside that courtroom this morning? >> reporter: hey, good morning, ana. madeleine westerhout who was the trump executive assistant inside of the white house for his first two and a half years there is

currently testifying under cross examination by susan necheles. they're currently looking at an email in which a former personnel aide, personal assistant to donald trump in the white house emailed with madeleine westerhout and rhona graff over the mailing of personal checks that donald trump would have sent to him from new york and the trump organization, and this individual, john mcentee requesting that they be sent to a personal address. this is part of madeleine westerhout here making it clear that in her role, in her capacity in which she was the one who was executing and bringing these actual checks to donald trump to be signed, essentially she is one of these individuals who is helping fill out the chain of custody that the prosecution needs to bring forward to the jury about how donald trump went about sending those reimbursement checks back to michael cohen. of course you said it, though, the marquee witness that we're waiting for, michael cohen expected to testify on monday, which would lead us to believe

that several additional witnesses could very well be brought up to come testify before this jury here to round out the prosecution's list of witnesses before the defense following michael cohen's several days of testimony brings forward their own witnesses in defense of donald trump, their defendant. >> so vaughn on that news about cohe taking the stand on monday, was that timing a surprise for anyone there at the courthouse? >> reporter: you know, the prosecution several days ago indicated that they had the expectation that they would need to have questioning take place for about two more weeks, which would have taken us to the end of next week or early the week thereafter. and so with michael cohen expected to take several days, we expect not only the prosecution asking questions but then cross examination, redirect, and more cross examination. we expect him to potentially take up the entire week. so of course the expectation when we're asking the question

how much longer does this trial go on, it's outstanding. we don't know exactly how long the defense intends to bring forward witnesses. of course the question is whether donald trump would testify himself. >> stand by and keep us posted on what's happening inside the courtroom, of course. let's start where we left off there, cohen taking the stand. he is expected to be perhaps the star witness. he's the one who completes the story from start to finish. what does it tell you, if he takes the stand monday, does that mean we're near the end? >> very. what the prosecution was doing was building up the story, building up from the beginning to the end and also corroborating michael cohen as much as they could before calling michael cohen to the stand. i expected michael cohen to be called as one of the last witnesses. i don't think he's going to be the exactly last witness because you don't want to end with michael cohen because we all know he's very problematic, so they'll probably have a witness or two after michael cohen. michael cohen, that's the person that we've been waiting for and that's going to give us crucial

testimony, crucial evidence and connect that tie between the payments and donald trump and how that was actually arranged without having allen weisselberg coming to testify. >> all right, because weisselberg was sort of the middleman as far as we've been told based on witness testimony so far. cohen's going to be taking the stand after we've heard over and over again prosecution talking to witnesses and already kind of getting out in front on credibility issues. then we've also heard the defense attorneys in their cross examination attacking cohen through, you know, the current testimony we've already had. how does that impact his own testimony? >> so michael cohen's not going to know what happened in the courtroom, so his testimony is sort of independent from these witnesses, in his head, right? but the prosecution has done here is sort of laid this foundation brick by brick of corroborating michael cohen's testimony even before he takes the stand. he has a lot of baggage.

there's no question about that. the defense team is going to have fun with this. there is a lot to do there on cross examination, and so the prosecution just really wants to buttress him as much as possible before he testifies. >> you said he wouldn't know what's already come out in testimony. is that because they were instructed to make sure witnesses aren't paying attention to the news? >> yeah, that's right. essentially it's important really that each witness in a criminal trial such as this is independent and they're not influenced by the testimony that happens before them. they're isolated. they're not supposed to learn anything about other witnesses at the trial. there are some oftentimes witnesses are allowed to be in the courtroom after they testify or learn about what happens after they testify, but even sometimes that is restricted as well. >> let's go back in to what's happening right now inside this courtroom and i want to take a look at the testimony with madeleine westerhout, vaughn kind of laid the groundwork for her testimony so far.

she began her testimony yesterday. right now donald trump's attorney continues with cross examination asking westerhout, you would leave any items for president trump on his desk? westerhout, yes. >> and he would sign checks, and you said he signed a tremendous amount of items? westerhout, yes. necheles, proclamations? yes, commands, proclamations, letters. necheles, he felt if someone was getting his signature they believed his real signature, westerhout, yes, this was between other things he was doing and did you see him i signing things like checks without reviewing them? westerhout, yes. necheles sign checks like meeting with top foreign leaders or meeting with you. yes. other times he was meeting with you, westerhout, no yeah. he could multitask? westerhout, yes. so i'm curious, first, ber nar da, what do you think they're

trying to get at here? >> they're trying to say donald trump he's so busy being the leader of this new world, he wasn't really paying attention to what he was signing. he wasn't focusing on those invoices and the checks that trump organization has sent over for him to sign. he was busy trying to run the country, so trying to distance him as as much as possible from these invoices and from these checks, but the big question that he can't run from is that those checks were from his personal account, and it had his signature. so this is the best the defense can do is try to create some confusion into when donald trump signed these checks. >> i want to bring in veteran trial attorney paul henderson joining the conversation as well. so, paul, as westerhout continues her testimony, she follows stormy daniels who was more confrontational on the stand with donald trump's attorneys and you could say vice versa, donald trump's attorney was more confrontational certainly with her than we're seeing with madeleine westerhout. madeleine westerhout is somebody who's been very friendly to

trump. she comes on, has expressed affection for trump, called him a really good boss, talked about writing a book, and how she wanted to make sure his story was out there. she thought he had been treated unfairly in materials of the public eye. >> i think they wanted to make it clear for the audience and jury that she knew and liked him. that her testimony is more credible because of that, and the key i think in bringing her on the stand and having her give that testimony about how close she was to the president, how much she liked the president makes what she has to say more true. that he actually had a reaction about stormy daniels and having to write a check for her. and here's why that's important because that's the linchpin of what he knew or should have known personally about what was going on. he's not going to be -- it's not going to be as easy for him to say, listen, i signed a lot of

checks. i signed a lot of documents. i do multitask, i did pay attention to that check. i was upset, visibly upset about the payments associated with stormy daniels. that's why her testimony was so important. i think it's very good for the prosecution and it completes the narrative of how much of an impact stormy daniels was on him and how much he was trying to pay her to not tell the story that we all heard in court this week. so that was a good prosecution witness and tells a narrative that i think is really important and ties donald trump to a personal understanding and reaction to having intentionality about what he was doing while he was signing his personal check. >> but does she also help the defense in sort of being a character witness for donald trump in a sense? >> i don't think in a strong way. you think her getting up there and saying that he's a good guy, that she liked the family, that she had made mistakes, that she really likes him, supports him and believes in his leadership, that has nothing to do with the

case. i think it's a throwaway. i don't think it gave the defense very much at all other than she is a credible witness and she may be open to saying nice things about him, but the reality of it is, the purpose of putting her on the stand in the first place is to show she had intimate familiarity with the president, specifically about this transaction, and she can testify specifically that he knew, understood, and reacted to what he was doing and that goes to his understanding about what he was doing and that's a point for the prosecution. that's why they have her on immediately after stormy daniels and makes her a good witness for the prosecution. >> vaughn, take us inside that courtroom, and maybe provide some of the color. what is her demeanor like on the stand? are we getting any reporting on trump's demeanor or how the jurors are reacting to her testimony? >> reporter: our colleague katherine doyle is saying at

this point and juncture under cross examination from susan necheles madeleine westerhout appears to be more uncomfortable answering some of the procedural questions that are being presented to her about exactly how they would mail private correspondence to donald trump from within the white house, and why a p.o. box was set up and then why did they use fedex? was that common inside of previous white houses, and madeleine westerhout is sort of outlining that they were new to this and they were figuring out how to be responsive to private conversations that donald trump wanted to be engaged in and not only he had a lot of obligations inside the white house, but she is answering the questions also about the decisions, for instance, picture frames with framed photos of the family are being discussed, in which she was talking with rhona graff over email about approving the expense for the photo because donald trump was busy, and that they didn't feel like they needed to go directly to him for that approval, but also that she

just testified that there are some situations in which he would sign things without looking at what he was exactly signing, which is counter to, of course, she's answering these questions under cross examination but donald trump's own attorney. that runs counter to micromanaging the type of framing the prosecution has attempted to lay out for the jurors with other individuals who have previously testified in front of this jury. >> okay. so let's go back into the testimony and i'm told redirect is just about to get underway just before redirect, this is how the defense left it with the cross examination. necheles asks westerhout, you were in the white house when there was a story about stormy daniels and you were working with him. westerhout says yes. necheles, con voe with trump about stormy daniels, westerhout that he was very upset by it. my understanding is that he knew it would be hurtful to his

family. the whole situation was very unpleasant. necheles, that was based on what he said to you. westerhout, i don't know if he specifically said that. necheles, no further questions. so ending there, sarah, what's the strategy, and what she said, was that a big win for the defense that he was worried about his family? >> that was a good spot for the defense to end, right? they made a good point. she sat down and didn't ask further questions to try to, you know, get some further admissions out of the witness, but it was a strong place for her to end. i think that the defense has sort of done what they need to do here. i think there probably is a tension with the defense attorneys and trump here, trump wants some sort of big moments on cross examination, some big wins. he can -- you know, that will be talked about in the press. the defense is really trying to chip away at these witnesses, really undermine the prosecution's case bit by bit so

they can stand up at the end and say there's reasonable doubt. >> bernarda, speaking of family, we know that trump perked up in the courtroom yesterday when westerhout was testifying about his relationship with his wife melania, and she talked about how trump would say, honey, come to the window so that i can wave at you, i'm paraphrasing this when he was beat at the oval office. up until now we were just coming off the testimony are from stormy daniels who was talking about an extramarital sexual encounter and hadn't heard much about his relationship with his wife, right? what impact do you see that testimony having in this trial? >> so it's twofold. so in terms of what the defense was trying to do is that they're trying to combat all the storm that stormy daniels brought in with her testimony, damaging to his credibility, to his persona, to how he treats women. so with this woman testifying, mr. westerhout who actually worked with donald trump for at least two years try to bring some friendly face to the

courtroom, a friendly face that donald trump knows to calm him down, but also to try to portray him as he's a nice man. he's a nice leader. he's a great manager. so to contradict what stormy daniels was saying. also, to go to say that, look, in terms of what donald trump was concerned of during this hush money stage, he was concerned for his family ab melania finding out and they're trying to drive that as maybe that was the focus in trying to maybe pay stormy daniels off, and it one that it was the focus, the payment for the campaign itself to affect the campaign. again, when it comes to the charges, if you can't tie this payment to concealing a crime of affecting the campaign itself, you can't get a conviction. putting those seeds to the jury. it just takes one juror to believe it was more for his family. >> let me take you into the redirect that we're seeing unfold right now inside this courtroom, so now the prosecutor who is questioning her is

rebecca man gold, the defense asked you about the method of sending checks to the white house,westerhout, yes. it just made it faster. it was just mangold's way of getting him to things faster. i think there's a typo in our document here again. bear with me folks at home since this is a working document coming from the courtroom. you didn't meet trump until after the election? westerhout, yes, in november 2016. didn't spend a significant amount of time with him until january of 2017, so after he was already in the white house. mangold asked were you on a different floor than mr. trump in trump tower? westerhout, yes. ms. necheles didn't ask you if you'd spoken to her before, westerhout, i have, once, i spoke with her two nights ago wednesday night. mangold asking about access hollywood tape came out in 2016. you did not meet mr. trump until november? westerhout, yes, and she didn't spend a significant amount of

time she says. westerhout saying no firsthand knowledge of trump reacting to the access hollywood tape fallout. paul, you're hearing this redirect, what is the strategy with this redirect, and by the way, i'll note westerhout just stepped off the witness stand, so we'll wait to see who is the next person called. >> i think it was a fantastic strategy. see how they planted the seed that because she is so friendly with trump, they also show to the jury that she has been in communication with the defense, and one of the strategies -- and this goes back to your earlier question about what it means that she likes the president, that she testified that she supports him and wishes well for him and his family, that strategy prevents the defense from really attacking her to undermine the credibility of the story and the narrative that she says when she talks about how the president operated, how he -- everybody though he's a

billionaire was paying attention to this specific payment that he knew about it, understood the transactions associated with his personal money in reaction to stormy daniels trying not to have the story told that we just heard because she's friendly with trump, that really prevented the defense attorneys from coming in and really attacking her as someone that was less credible that had an agenda because her agenda was not to destroy the president, and that makes her testimony more credible. i thought this was a great cross, recross exam from the prosecution not to open up too many more issues but to leave an issue with a question and answer from the jury to indicate that the defense had actually had access to her. that makes her testimony more credible rather than less, and i think it was a job well done. >> vaughn, do we know anything more about her communication with trump's defense attorneys. >> reporter: right, it was just revealed under questioning by the prosecution the extent to which she had engaged before

today with the defense attorneys for donald trump, and she acknowledged here from the witness stand that she had a one-hour zoom with susan necheles on wednesday night. now, this is sort of the oddity, you could say of some of these witnesses that were chosen to be brought forward by the prosecution because the d.a.'s office also met for three hours with madeleine westerhout. these are opportunities for both sides to meet with these witnesses at their will to have a better understanding of exactly how they may answer some specific questions in the line of questioning that they would want to present directly to westerhout once she's in that chair in front of the jury here. and so you could call her a friendly witness to trump. she is currently working for robert o'brien, the former national security adviser, his consulting firm. at the same time, it was the decision of the prosecution to bring her on the witness stand, so somebody like a madeleine westerhout is sort of a perfect profile of an individual that

both sides feel that they were able to get some string of to build their case and ultimately towards the culmination of this trial. >> okay, and the next witness they just called is daniel dixon, we're learning he's from broward county, florida, he works as an appliance analyst for a telecom company and he's there to apparently authenticate phone records. we'll keep an eye on his testimony. i want to bring in political white house reporter eli stokols who covered the white house during the trump administration as well as his 2016 campaign. i want to ask you about the person who was just on the stand, madeleine westerhout who sat right outside the oval office, controlled a lot of the communications for then president trump, talked about the checks that he would sign, his micromanagement style, his ability to multitask, she said, and all the rules that he had for everything from oxford commas in his tweets to the sharpies he preferred for signing documents, and she found

that he always knew where things were. he paid close attention to spending. made calls late into the night. how does all of her testimony square with your reporting on how trump ran the white house? and anything in particular that stands out to you? >> ana, thanks for having me. i think the picture she paint ed is probably a pretty accurate one. i saw in some of the courtroom sketches, the poster board of the oval office. she was right outside, and the west wing proximity to the oval is power. she spent so much time around the president being summoned by the president whenever he needed something, and obviously the reason she's porn here is because she was the connection point when things were happening on the outside and they needed to get to donald trump to sign a check or he needed to be aware of something, or they were setting things up surreptitiously on the outside she was the intermediary, she was the one connecting him with

michael cohen or other people on the outside, setting up meetings. she's obviously critical to the prosecution's case in that sense, and i think that, you know, donald trump is a fairly particular boss, right? he likes things a certain way. when he wants a diet coke, aides know they better get him that diet coke right away. they are familiar with how he would bounce from one activity to the next. how he would get upset about something he would see on the television in the executive dining room on the other side of the oval and would want his phone or want to tweet about it or want to send out a statement. when he wanted to see someone in his office, they needed to be in there quickly. it would be people like madeleine westerhout who would be out there trying to summon those people and get them into the oval. she was very close to the president and had a really clear understanding of the way that the trump white house operated. there were a lot of people coming in and out of that oval at certain points. there was a lot of chaos.

there were a lot of controversies swirling around the president at that time. he was struggling to find a new chief of staff. there was consternation on the hill, the mueller investigation was going. there were a lot of stress point and she was sort of his first person -- first person he would go to when he needed something, wanted something, so she was right in the middle of all of it. >> you had some fascinating reporting in 2018 about how trump responded to the reporting of the hush money payments at that time. you wrote for the l.a. times, trump is loathe to admit any fault when forced to confront his previously false statements. instead, he responds like a retreating army that refuses to surrender forced out of one fox hole, he's fallen back to another to reposition again and again. and i wonder, you know, fast forward six years or so, almost six years, here we are, and this story coming full circle. what do you think is his next move if he's like that army

refusing to surrender? >> you know, when i would talk to white collar crime, criminologists, people who study this stuff. it's common to see the invincibility among white collar criminals. donald trump's illusion of invisibility, this idea that he can adapt to circumstances, change his own circumstances, and that nothing will ever really get to him is nothing like anything from any white collar criminal they have ever seen. donald trump faces a lot of different counts in a lot of different cases here, and he is still, you see it every day,ing talking to the cameras, responding in the moment. he is living in this constant present. not worrying about what he said ten seconds ago or ten days ago or three years ago. worrying about right now, always communicating and changing his story, and he's not going to be shamed by the fact that that story doesn't line up with what

he said before. i have been thought about some of this stuff in a while, looking through that at first when he was asked about the payments when michael cohen was pleading guilty, at first he denied knowing anything about any payments to michael cohen. sort of dismissed this on air force one when he was questioned about it. then more facts came out, trump changed his story he said, well, those were just legal payments. it had nothing to do with any of this. ultimately he said we don't anything illegal. you could see him kind of reacting in realtime because his strategy is always a political or public relations strategy more than a legal strategy. it has always been the case with donald trump that that's how he sees things. i think it's still the way he's operating in this trial. a lot of his defense and the reason he's violating this gag order is because he feels the need to communicate with the public to make sure that they -- it's his hope that they see this trial as politically motivated and that they are dismissive of what they are hearing about

taking place in the courtroom. >> i really appreciate your insights. thanks so much for joining us. and everyone stay with me, up next we're breaking down new updates from that manhattan courthouse, the witness on the stand now there to authenticate phone records. we're back with our panel after a very short break. my name is david. i've been a pharmacist for 44 years. when i have customers come in and ask for something for memory, i recommend prevagen. number one, because it's effective. does not require a prescription. and i've been taking it quite a while myself and i know it works. and i love it when the customers come back in and tell me, "david, that really works so good for me." makes my day. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. when migraine strikes you're faced with a choice. ride it out with the tradeoffs of treating? or push through the pain and symptoms? with ubrelvy, there's another option. one dose works fast to eliminate migraine pain treat it anytime, anywhere.

without worrying where you are or if it's too late. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. allergic reactions to ubrelvy can happen. most common side effects were nausea and sleepiness. migraine pain relief starts with u. ask about ubrelvy. learn how abbvie could help you save. today, at america's beverage companies,... ...our bottles might still look the same... ...but they can be remade in a whole new way. thanks to you... we're getting bottles back... and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic. new bottles - made using no new plastic. you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. and when we get more of them back... ...we can use less new plastic. see how our bottles are made to be remade. (♪♪) ♪ healthier's not something that happens all alone ♪ ♪ it takes greg and lydia, and josie on the phone. ♪ ♪ it's grammy getting checked on in her favorite chair. ♪

♪ or dolling herself up to go ♪ ♪ handle all of her care. ♪ ♪ with doctors to nurses ♪ ♪ and all the people in between ♪ ♪ healthier happens in more ways ♪ ♪ than ray's ever seen. ♪ ♪ healthier happens together. ♪ a slow network is no network for business. that's why more ♪ choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to

triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today! welcome back. as we continue our breaking news coverage of donald trump's hush money trial where right now an at&t employee is on the stand to authenticate phone records. and back with us is nbc's vaughn hillyard at the courthouse. vaughn, take us inside that courtroom. what are the questions prosecutors are asking to this witness? >> reporter: right, it's that at&t employee daniel dixon's lucky day. he gets to go in front of donald trump and testify to phone records and bring them in as evidence in front of this jury. they are looking currently at six at&t customers' phones, but also they're able to enter into

evidence 11 other phony information because of the use of at&t cellular towers here. one of those phones was michael cohen's primary phone. we are going to be seeing those text messages, some that have already been brought forward. the text messages between the likes of keith davidson and dylan howard of the "national enquirer" and michael cohen. so some of these messages were we should wholly expect to be brought forward before this jury when michael cohen himself takes the stand this upcoming monday. >> stay close, please, and let's bring back our legal panel, sarah krissoff, bernarda villalona and paul henderson. what's the point of this line of questioning? >> it might be a little dry for the jury, but frankly the trial has been pretty entertaining so far so a few bits of dry evidence aren't going to be a problem. but it's really, again, to corroborate the testimony of the other witnesses. michael cohen's going to talk about communications he had,

calls he had, text messages he had, and then the prosecution is going to stand up at the end of this and say, you know why you can believe michael cohen? because it's right here in the text messages. >> you were surprised they didn't save this guy for after michael cohen, why? >> this would be a good witness to put after michael cohen. it would corroborate him, and there's not a lot of cross examination to do with this guy. it's dry. it's simple. there's some cross examination you would do, information about sort of you don't know what was said on the calls, the records don't show the content or anything like that, but it would have been sort of i think a nice sort of simple place to end or probably not your last witness but close to the end. >> and bernarda, of course with it being cohen's phone records and text messages and emails that are being looked at here, right? we've got emails and communications with david

pecker, with dylan howard, the other guy from the american media company as well as keith davidson who is stormy daniels' attorney at the time of this hush money deal that went on, obviously this is stuff they're going to be picking apart with michael cohen, no? >> absolutely. so in terms of daniel dixon testifying, he's going to bring in the phone records. but remember that there's already been testimony about the calls that is michael cohen made before and after he set up this shell compan ask made payments to stormy daniels' attorney. all of that is corroboration for what we expect them to testify and what you already heard before. in terms of this witness himself, he's not going to testify as to the contents themselves or the text messages, but merely that these calls were made and putting all the records into evidence and so then the prosecution at the end at closing arguments can pick and choose what they want to take out of those records. that's the great part of putting

an entire business record into evidence is that you don't have to bother the witness in terms of testifying about every phone call, every text message that was made. instead you can highlight the ones that are most important and then save some so you can ask other witnesses like michael cohen, oh, in your phone records, where in your phone records did you call donald trump or you made that call, made that meeting. before you set up the shell company, after you set up the shell company, once you made payment. all of this corroboration, corroboration, corroboration, because we know ichael cohen is a troubled witness. >> this is moving quickly, it's already on to cross examination with this particular witness. it's just about entering these phone records and authenticating them. we have seen the defense with other witnesses who had to authenticate or discuss some of the other communications that they handled, the defense tried to call into question their

authenticity. tried to suggest that they could have been manipulated. >> yeah, and they have to. they can't let a witness like this go that the prosecution puts on that they just wave away and don't say anything. that validate it is to the jury. they have to say something. they have to do something. what i think is really interesting about putting this witness on the stand right now, i think it's a trial strategy move. i think they put him on to be innocuous to lay this foundation because michael cohen is going to be so controversial, and because they didn't want to bring him up and put him on as their last witness to open the door for issues that gives the defense the entire weekend to prepare more for what he's going to say. that's part of the strategy. that's part of the reason why they chose to put him on to do these phone record validation, which seems pretty innocuous in the context of the big explosive testimony we've heard this week, just to not give defense a preview of what michael cohen is

going to say and to allow them to prepare to have this witness on on friday. that's what i'm paying attention to in the courtroom. >> we know, paul, that cohen's already had significant time with prosecutors undergoing witness prep, do you expect he'd undergo more of that this weekend? >> i think most of it's been done by now. they pretty much know what michael cohen is going to say, and this testimony before he testifies is going to be the validation that we were alluing to earlier where he's going to say specifically and the jury's going to be able to say specifically, oh, yeah, we saw those records. oh, yeah, we saw how many times they were in communication. i understand his testimony in the context of how frequently they were talking, when they were talking, it's going to ta the narrative together because that's what the prosecution is doing. they're telling a story, and the jury was leaning in this week listening to the story understanding how salacious it was, understanding how the president responded.

understanding how donald trump was reacting to all of this. that's exactly what they're trying to do that's leading us up to next week where we're going to start connecting dots of how he understood things, what he was trying to do, how he knew and understood about the false narrative that he was trying to present to protect his campaign by paying off this hush money so the story wouldn't come out. those are the dots that you're going to start see connected by michael cohen, which is what makes him so important, that's exactly why they want a fresh week to start, that's why i believe they put on the testimony today friday afternoon with this witness that they have on the stand right now. >> and right now my understanding is bove, the attorney for donald trump who's doing the cross examination of this phone records witness is suggesting that there might have been some pocket dials in the phone records mix here. bernarda, when we think about

cohen testifying early next week, as soon as monday is our understanding, what do you see as the potential pitfalls for prosecutors with michael cohen? >> so in terms of having michael cohen testify on monday and then a strategic move for him to start off the week, that way you'll have him testifying monday, tuesday, unfortunately you'll have that wednesday off which i'm sure prosecutors don't want that because the defense is going to try to have it continued until thursday and have wednesday to prep. when michael cohen what the prosecutors have to do, they're going to have to show this jury the good, the bad and the ugly because they don't want to lose credibility with this jury, so they're going to try to sell to this jury, look, michael cohen is who he is. they're not trying to clean him up. they're going to bring out his criminal activity that he pled guilty, that he was in jail but also why he was in jail, what he pled guilty and some of the underlying facts to that, subject to judge merchan's order as to what they can take out.

remember, michael cohen pled guilty having to deal with donald trump. so the jury's not going to be allowed to use that plea and infer guilt on donald trump. in terms also of michael cohen, they're going to set out the complete timeline from the beginning to the end. they're going to set up the close relationship michael cohen with the campaign and how active he was and how close and trusted he was to donald trump because they have to develop that trust because if you don't develop that trust, then the argument would be to the jury by the defense is that why would he trust -- why would he trust michael cohen to do this? instead, michael cohen was rogue. he acted on his own, not at the direction of donald trump. donald trump didn't tell him to do that. he just wanted to be in donald trump's light and donald trump wasn't aware of that. also important that they're going to have to bring out that recorded phone call, the recorded -- not phone call, audio tape inside where he talks

to donald trump about the payment to karen mcdougal. while that's key evidence in this case, they're going to have to explain, michael cohen, why would you record your own client a conversation that you had. isn't it unethical for you to make this recording? what led you to make this recording? what led you to have that conversation. all of that is going to come out. michael cohen's going to be on that stand for hours, for hours. >> possibly days i have a feeling. >> definitely days. i hope he can keep his cool, though. you have to keep your cool because you have to be intentional with the answers that you give, and you have to listen to the question. because in the end, michael cohen was an attorney too so he knows how this goes. >> that's a good point. we'll come back to that, i giggle because i think michael cohen is very much a colorful character, and it's hard to contain him as we've seen. he's been out there during this trial saying a lot of things that other legal analysts have said. i would not like that if i were a prosecutor and my witness was

doing that. paul henderson, thank you so much. sarah and bernarda stay close. we'll bring you updates as we get them. from the courtroom to the campaign trail, donald trump is going to hold a rally in new jersey tomorrow. stay with us. jersey tomorrow. stay with us so i didn't think i needed swiffer, until, i saw how easily it picked up my hair every time i dried it! only takes a minute. look at that! the heavy duty cloths are extra thick, for amazing trap & lock. even for his hair. wow. and for dust, i love my heavy duty duster. the fluffy fibers trap dust on contact, up high and all around without having to lift a thing. i'm so hooked. you'll love swiffer. or your money back! 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. -remember when i said we need to screen for colon cancer? -was that after i texted the age to screen was now 45? [both] because i said cologuard®! -hey there! -where did he come from? -yup, with me you can screen at home. just talk to your provider. [both] we'll screen with cologuard and do it my way. cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45+ at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for me, cologuard. with the freestyle libre 3 system know your glucose levels. no fingersticks needed. all with the world's smallest and thinnest sensor. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. try it for free at freestylelibre.us

♪ ♪ [sfx] water lapping. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [sfx] water splashing. ♪ ♪ [sfx] ambient / laughing.

♪ ♪ welcome back, testimony in day 15 of donald trump's hush money trial continues right now where prosecutors just called a new witness to the stand, another phone records person appears, an employee for verizon. so we went from at&t to verizon now. but a look at who is sitting in the gallery in court can say almost as much about donald trump's state of affairs as who is sitting on the witness stand, and today we are seeing some campaign aides like susie wiles and boris epshteyn. we've this week seen florida senator rick scott who showed up yesterday, had the former president's back sitting behind

trump in the courtroom lobbying for him, saying things in tv news interviews that trump can't because of a gag order, and this weekend the president will hit the campaign trail with no bailiff, no attorneys, no judge standing over him. i want to bring in former gop communications director tara setmayer, resident scholar at the university of virginia center for politics. thanks so much for joining us. this week it's rick scott. last week it was texas attorney general ken paxton, a couple of republicans who have had their own trouble with the law who stood by trump there in the courtroom, and they came out, called this trial a sham. does their loyalty help trump sell the narrative that his indictment was a political hit job? >> well, for his base, sure, but i'm not quite sure people who have had their own run-ins with the law are credible to moderate voters that donald trump needs to convince to vote for him in the seven swing states that will decide this election. so it's clear that rick scott is

vying for the vp slot like many others. this is his way of trying to demonstrate that he's loyal enough, so that's his motivation right there, and it's also obvious that donald trump has sent word out that if people want to be in his good graces, they need to show up in the courtroom and support him because his own family isn't. >> is it reasonable to wonder if showing up for trump in court could serve as a litmus test of sorts for anyone who wants to be his running mate or potential future cabinet member? >> of course. you know, it's like the apprentice meets the bachelor, so that's how donald trump operates. he's a reality show guy. it's all about the pomp and circumstance, and proving loyalty, and what better way to do that than to sit in a courtroom while he's on trial for a hush money, you know, case with a porn star. pretty obvious to me what's going on here with that. >> do you see other republicans then lining up for the opportunity? >> possibly. i mean, why wouldn't they?

they've stooped -- there's no low they haven't stooped to yet to prove their loyalty. we saw what happened at mar-a-lago when he trotted out a bunch of republicans to parade them on stage to see who could be more loyal for the vp slot. and these were people who said horrible things about trump when they were running against him in 2016, until they weren't because they have a certain amount of desire to be relevant and political expediency, which i think is pretty hypocritical and craven. >> donald trump is going to be in your home state of new jersey tomorrow holding a rally near wildwood. with the limited time to campaign around his trial schedule, mind you he wasn't campaigning on wednesday. he was in mar-a-lago, but why wouldn't he be hitting all the swing states with all he's got at this point? >> well, which the irony of that is that he whines and complains that he can't campaign properly because of this trial and how unfair it is, and yet, at every opportunity almost when he can campaign he chooses to do events

like this, which is more about adulation. that's his fuel. he needs to be in front of his sycophants in order to recharge. we all know this, and so while wild wood unfortunately in my home state of new jersey and south jersey is a very trump-friendly area. the congressman there van drew, he was a democrat and switched over to republican and became very maga, so wildwood is a friendly place. they're going to do it on the beach, can hold up to 40,000 people. i'll be curious to see how many show up for this, but this is what donald trump does. he'd much rather be speaking to the same people in the same echo chamber than expanding his base. he's got to expand his voter base if he thinks he's going to win. new jersey isn't the place to do that. that's what he needs to survive, and we all know that. >> good to have you here, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. now back to the courtroom where our team just spotted the manhattan district attorney, alvin bragg for the first time in several days. nbc's yasmin vossoughian is joining us from outside the

courthouse. how significant is it to see bragg in court? >> reporter: it's truly significant, ana, he hasn't been in much throughout this trial so far. i think i can count maybe two, this might be the second or third time in which he's actually sitting in court, but fairly significant to say the least. we're seeing kind of a buildup as you all have been talking about all morning towards the testimony of michael cohen. if you remember the evidence that michael cohen has turned over and was subsequently seized on a raid in his office, many of which was phone records, text messages, recordings in which michael cohen made of him, conversations he was having of him, allen weisselberg, the former president of the united states as well. this is kind of part of the documents piece that i have been talking about over the last couple of days, which is really key to the prosecution's case here, right? it is the documents, what has been seized from many of these phone calls as you listen to the testimony from the individual who works for at&t, they were

going over six different at&t customers, now an individual who works for verizon going over phone records of 12 different customers from verizon. in the cross examination, it was important to note that bove kind of went at this individual testifying for at&t more about how there could be inconsistencies when it comes to some of those phone records and/or someone could kind of switch a sim card to another phone, for instance, possibly it wasn't being taken from the actual phone itself. maybe the sim card could have been changed: putting questions in the jurors' minds. this is what it's all about, the evidence that will be submitted and shown when michael yasmin u for that update. and they're now looking at allen weisselberg's phone records as the testimony continues again with this new witness from verizon. i want to bring back our legal panel, sarah chris and bernardia

vialona. i want to talk about what happens when it goes to the defense. we're talking about michael cohen being a big witness next week. shortly after him we anticipate things will start to wrap up on the prosecution's side, and there have been a lot of discussion around whether trump will take the stand in his own defense. he's been very outspoken about his desire to take the stand, went from absolutely to softening to if it is necessary. after stormy daniels' testimony, bernardia, when he was really fired up, do you think he's more or less likely to take the stand? >> i think that -- i can tell you this, he definitely had that conversation after stormy daniels testified. i want to testify. i want to testify. my people need to know the truth. they need to hear my side. but then that the attorneys had to calm him down. we need to talk about who are you catering your talks to, are you catering to the jurors who are ultimately going to make the decision as to your guilt or not

or catering for the court of public opinion on the outside. the focus is inside of this courtroom. and there is no need for donald trump to testify. number one, he can't be controlled. number two, he'll be confronted as already in evidence, the jury has heard from him without testifying with the recording from michael cohen, with his social media posts, with his books and what he's written in books, so the jury has heard from him. also, you have to keep in mind, if donald trump were to testify, judge merchan has already made a ruling that he can be cross-examined on the e. jean carroll lawsuit, both of them, he can be cross-examined that he was fined a $5,000 one time by judge engoron and $10,000 another time by judge engoron because he couldn't follow the court rules. these are things he will be subject to in cross examination. but he can't be controlled. he can't be controlled during direct examination and when it

comes to cross examination, come on, keep him off the stand. it does more harm than good. >> stormy daniels tweeted yesterday, real men respond to testimony being sworn in and taking the stand in court. oh, wait, never mind. your reaction to that and, did she maybe open the door for judge merchan to modify the gag order because right now, she can put that out there, but trump, as he's complained about, can't say anything back to her at least specifically. >> yeah, she certainly seemed to be egging him on to testify there. i think i don't see any change to this gag order, judge merchan is working hard to keep the former president as quiet as he can during the course of the trial to prevent any sort of influence over the witnesses or the jury, i think the gag order will stay in place as is. but trump has a big decision to make, and ultimately this decision is his. and his lawyers are going to counsel him and spend a lot of time talking with him about this

and what the testimony would look like if he chooses to take the stand. but he gets to make that decision, it is not his lawyers' decision at the end of the day and he might, you know, he might make a decision that may not be in his best interest in connection with this case, but is something he wants to do for himself, he wants to do for his family, wants to do politically, regardless of the outcome of this particular criminal case. >> one of the reasons i bring it up today is this also came up in court after stormy daniels' testimony where donald trump's lawyer todd blanche was upset and complaining, calling for a mistrial about how prejudicial stormy daniels' testimony had been, particularly around the details of this alleged sexual encounter in the hotel, and the prosecution ultimately said, you know, we needed to include those details because it was about her own credibility, it is about the strength of the case, how damaging this story would be if it got out before the election in 2016 and they said, you know, trump could defend himself.

steinglass, the prosecutor saying if they want to offer testimony that the sex never happened, that's their prerogative. what do you make of that argument, bernardia? >> so, the prosecution is definitely baiting donald trump, just like stormy daniels is baiting donald trump, to testify, like, i dare you go to testify. it is true, in terms of what happened with stormy daniels testifying, the only person that can conflict or counter that a sexual encounter didn't take place is donald trump. the person that was in the room. so, with josh steinglass saying that, he's a great attorney, i actually interned for him in law school in 2003, 2002, he knows what to expect and donald trump is not going to be able to hold up. i think his demeanor, his attitude, is just going to overwhelm this jury and is just not in his best interest. >> thank you, ladies, so much.

sarah, bernarda, great to have you with us, we appreciate it. thanks to yasmin vossoughian for her reporting. vaughn hillyard at the courthouse. that's going to do it for us this hour. i'll see you back here at noon eastern. for andrea mitchell today, for more coverage of donald trump's hush money trial. for now, i'm ana cabrera reporting in new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage next. g in new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage next. (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. (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.

[tense music] one aleve works all day so i can keep working my magic. just one aleve. 12 hours of uninterrupted pain relief. aleve. who do you take it for? ...and for fast topical pain relief,try alevex. if you have wet amd, you never want to lose sight of the things you love. some things should stand the test of time. long lasting eylea hd

could significantly improve your vision and can help you go up to 4 months between treatments. if you have an eye infection, eye pain or redness, or allergies to eylea hd, don't use. eye injections like eyla hd may cause eye infection, separation of the retina, or rare but severe swelling of blood vessels in the eye. an increase in eye pressure has been seen. there's an uncommon risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots. the most common side effects were blurred vision, cataract, corneal injury, and eye floaters. and there's still so much to see. if you are on eylea or a similar type of treatment, ask your retina specialist about eylea hd today, for the potential for fewer injections. honestly, i was scared when i was told age ask your retina specialist about eylea hd related macular degeneration could jeopardize my vision. great. one more thing to worry about. it was all too hard to deal with in the beginning,

but making a plan with my doctor to add precision was easy. preservision areds2 contains the exact nei recommended, clinically proven nutrient formula to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. thanks to preservision, i feel better that i'm doing something about it like millions of others.