Point out we still need prosecutors to connect donald trump to the actual actions that are taking place here. Donald trump did not say set up this llc. Its important to remember that Michael Cohens testimony has to be supported at some point to where did donald trump instruct you to do this specifically. Its time for us to hand it over. Thank you all for being with us. We appreciate all of you. Thats going to do it for us this hour. Andrea mitchell and katy tur will pick things up after a quick break. Ill see you back at 1 00 eastern time. Keep it here. Lots going on. Good day, everyone. The star witness takes the stand. Now the critical figure in the hush money case. Michael cohen, once Donald Trumps loyal attack dog, is now facetoface with his former boss for the first time in months. Cohen is the lynch pin of the prosecutions case. They argue cohen acted at trumps direction in an attempt to illegally influence the 2016 election. The defenses counter, once a liar, always a liar. Pain
Up witness david pecker who is at times combative, and jurors largely avoiding looking at trump, but according to those inside the room, giving pecker their rapt attention. For a day filled with details and inside baseball legalese, no small feat. We have a panel of experts standing by to explain it all. Plus, nothing matters more than how the jury is interpreting the Witness Testimony weve seen so far. How are attorneys on both sides analyzing what jurors are taking away from the questioning. Well ask a Jury Consultant. And for the political stakes of this trial, the campaign. The former president announcing new Campaign Events when hes not in the courtroom while President Biden just made a promise that could have a major impact on novembers race. So a lot to get to. We begin with that Redirect Questioning of key witness david pecker, which began just a short time ago. Prosecutors jumping straight into rebutting some key threats from the defense. One key, for example, steinglass, is t
why isn t he suing her for defamation if this affair in fact did not occur? i don t think there is any answer to that other than the fact that the affair did occur. they haven t yet. but now that we ve seen the 60 minutes interview from stormy daniels and of course karen mcdougal spoke with cnn just days ago. so how legally vulnerable are they both now that they ve gone public with their stories? well, stormy daniels acknowledged that she was facing potential legal jeopardy by telling her story. we know that trump and team has already accused her of violating the nondisclosure agreement and and that she could potentially be liable for $20 million in damages. the liquidated damages clause in the nondisclosure agreement calls for a million dollars every time she makes a disclosure. now we re getting word 20 times she allegedly disclosed the affair.
agreement, it will end up costing me x number of dollars. now a crafty person drafting an agreement will put in a favorable liquidated damages clause tore themselves. that s exactly what s happened here. no question the trump team unilaterally all by themselves drafted this agreement and created a liquidated damages clause, unfortunately for stormy, if they assert it, it would be up to her to prove this was not a reasonable forecast of the damages. but the 20 million is essentially say figure i breach, this is a fair amount of damages that will be owed to you. hypothetical, could somebody pay the $20 million and proceed is that the figure in. the way the contract is drafted, it s a million dollars per breach or per occurrence or some language like that. so that sa number they put in the removal papers probably to satisfy number one the amount in controversy so you can move it up to federal court. but also as a scare tactic
to be liable for another 20 or $100 million. no, we don t. the president also thinks he won the popular vote too. so i don t know what to say. but look, this $20 million demand or $20 million claim of damages is laughable. and next i guess we ll hear 50 or 100 or $200 million. it is an absolute joke. we don t believe the agreement will be upheld and even if it is upheld, that liquidated damages clause will never be upheld because it is what it is called legally unconscionable even as the parties agreed to and even if they read and understood it, in the [ technical difficulties ] that no word will enforce a [ inaudible ] when it was only $130,000. so this is pie in the sky. it is a bullingy tacting