Crossexamination aimed at undermining her credibility into some embarrassing moments for the former president. At one point saying that if she were making up her story about sex with donald trump, quote, i would have written it to be a lot better today also saw testimony from Trump Organization bookkeeper about how closely he monitors the checks he writes detailing the attention he paid two amounts considerably smaller than 35,000 checks. He wrote two Michael Cohen the day ended with judge juan merchan and rejecting another trump motion for for mistrial and denying his request to modify the gag order. He is under so we can talk about Stormy Daniels and capping it all off. Stormy daniels tweet this evening saying this about the former president , quote, real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh, wait never mind. Back of the panel joining us conservative lawyer george conway, who was in court today what were your takeaways on my takeaway. Was that the continued crossexamination of Stormy Daniels was a complete disaster and a fiasco for the defense. I mean as a rabbit hole that didnt need to go what is just it just went on and on and didnt she didnt have anything. Honore you gotta confine crosses two basically a few short leinz of stuff thats good. They didnt do that i think what happened was they had a day off and necklaces of very good lawyer by reputation. I can you can tell just by the way, she conducted it as well, she knows how to crossexamine a witness and knows how to ask questions. But she was shes her client is a Narcissistic Sociopath and who is obsessed with proving the lie that he didnt have anything to do with Stormy Daniels. And so they went off on this whole tangent on, but basically, it doesnt it done in a lot. The defenses position should be it doesnt really matter whether that happened or not, because even if it whereas Extortion Money it was Extortion Money, it still could be a crime, but were trying to prove something that happened, didnt happen is just its just counterproductive. And was it just got to The Point Of Ridiculousness where shes asking stormy about basically a map of south lake tahoe, nevada to figure out whether or not she was walking in or hell one block or two. And where did he took a cab . It was she just garbage and it was embarrassing. And to the point where if you control the witness by keeping your cross simple and short, you can control the witness but the longer you go, the more the witness can pop off at and this woman is way smarter than knockout necklaces, chunk client, and she got some really could let me i thought i saw jurors at some point trying to do what i was trying to do, which were suppressing laughter at some at some of the shots that stormy got into got into the record. It was just it was just a complete waste of time. The good news for the defense is thats not what this case is going to be about in the at the end of the day the process. Let me defense. Made the mistake, also, a putting this all into make put up just stipulated to were not going to contest what happened yet in south lake tahoe, and were just going to focus the jury in on the fact of whether or not there is proof that donald trump knew about the records that we claim were flipped, that the Prosecution Claims were falsified. Now, lets leave apart the fact that he signed some of this stuff with a backup next lets do it and you know what carefully read it. It was 35,000 to his lawyers, hadnt really done that much. Four lets leave that aside. Thats what this issue that if he gets off, thats how hes going to get off. Bye. By leaving this issue open about what happened in that hotel room. They invited the prosecution to dump all the stuff in the record, then they fail to object to a lot some of the stuff that should have they should have objected to like the bit about whether or not he wore a condom. Let me the judge said that he didnt think that should have gone in, but there was no objection thing about the amount of money and what how closely he pays attention to that. It didnt get anywhere near as much attention as the Stormy Daniels crossexamination, but Madeline Western Out who got on the stand it was the last witness today and shell be back on the stand tomorrow morning. She was trumps gatekeeper inside the white house and it basically was the liaison who was his Executive Assistant at Trump Organization, trump tower. They trained her of how to basically do that out of the white house. And there was one moment that the prosecution clearly brought up where there was an email between her and rhona graff, trumps assistant here in trump tower about buying a frame a frame from tiffanys next door because they didnt have any empty ones for a picture of trumps mother. They wanted to put and rhona graff responded in the email and said, okay, but the frames are about 650 with a 10 discount. Can you check with them if thats how much he wants to spend . This is why donald trump is the president of the United States of america. And he was rhona, who knows him better than anyone, essentially was still checking to see if that was too much money for him to spend don a frame and for her to expense it. And i think that is where were going to see this go tomorrow that they are trying to get to the fact that he was a penny pinch or any paid attention to where every cent went and we paid this guy 35,000 a month and he has a reputation around this town of Stiffing Law Firms like you could, you could, you could make a long list on ellies notepad there records, the recording that Michael Cohen secretly taped of his client trump, does seem interested in the details of payments. I mean, hes talking about i didnt catch yeah. Can we do we do it in catch shirts . Let me ask you this question. Is it seems to me that there is a lot of evidence that trump in general was very scrupulous about how he was spending his money. And in general, looked at documents very carefully. Before he signed them, but theres not any evidence specifically that he looked at these documents. Do you think thats enough for it let me there is evidence he signed those checks with the backup but thats not evidence that thats not are they separate georgie evidence. That its clear how you feel about President Trump. Okay. I dont have a feeling one way or the other. Im looking this as a trial attorney. Okay. And im looking at his object deeply as i can as a former prosecutor and as a current Criminal Defense Attorney what theres a big difference . Yes, theres evidence that Donald Trumps sign the checks. Ive said that thats not the crime theres kaitlan. Your point about the council told on the checks europe, your point about the frame. Its clear that he watches his money but thats not the crime. Its that second leap of how does it then get written down back in new york city wheres it listed . How is it listed . Is it listed as reimbursements to Michael Cohen or is it legal fetal Michael Cohen there has been no proof whatsoever that donald trump had anything to do with how its listed on the ledger in trump tower . Can i try reframe this for a second. Ill pose a question to your george. If the prosecution stands up tomorrow and says, your honor, at this point, we rest. Can they possibly when they would have to dismiss the case not necessarily. Am i think theres enough circumstantial evidence that they could refer it, but thanks. Need to put some more on why i so you know, so it would be i agree with arthur, i think if the prosecution rested tomorrow, it doesnt go to the jury. So they need something from Michael Cohen, right . Yeah. Theyre going to need what do you think they need from Michael Cohen . Basically is going to explain the missing link that he needs to come meeting in the oval office in 2018 where they basically discussed how to do this. And i think i think theyre gonna do across. On michael that is going to attempt to be brutal the way they attempted to brutalize Stormy Daniels today and a lot of people have low expectations for that. But the fact that matter is, given everything that they appointed two so far from the commencement of the hush of a catchandkill scheme to the end, Everything Everything like just fell off my mic just hold it up what michael has been is going to say has basically been precarity paraded. So its gonna be that, but it is going to be the key moment. I think thats exactly right. And that bridges the gap, but i think were seeing here which is there has to be that last link. And Michael Cohens going to say its that meeting in the oval office in 2017, were going to hear about they actually set the foundation for that today because the woman who testified had an email, so showing that this meeting was happening doesnt tell us why thats what was said. But the jury knows that meeting happened to Michael Cohens testimony about that im sorry. Go ahead and ask this is going to be a dumb question, but the fact that these payments were split up over the course of a year to me seems like one of the most fishy elements of this whole scheme. If he were just going to reimburse Michael Cohen, he could have just written a check that money was there. But the fact that they split it up, it seems to strongly suggest they were trying to make it seem like something that it was not. Ive retainer that was being paid over the course of a long period of time right. And the gross up like, well, yeah, i mean, i mean, you know, got this regardless of the amount, the means to me, i think the prosecution hasnt explained this or touched on this, but that seems strongly suggestive of a scheme to make it seem like something that it was not. And thats exactly the point. Its not enough for the prosecution to show donald trump signed these checks. He knew they were intended to reimburse Michael Cohen for the hush money payments. They have to show that this was part of an effort to falsify, to falsely structure these labels and the pulldown menu as lawyer fees, Attorney Fees in order to cover up the fact that there really how does but how does Michael Cohen . And help on that question . Well, look at the end of the day whats a reasonable doubt . A reasonable doubt has to be that there has to be some plausible Alternative Explanation for all these things that happened at the end of the day. Its going to be i think its really hard for the jury to believe that donald trump didnt know that these payments were before george at the end of the day . Yeah. And experienced lawyer of your magnitude, you know what you would save if you try this case, you know what you would say. The jury. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, one of the luckiest jerrys around because you got to meet mr. Reasonable doubt, so im walking here. You. So ill take this then if theres any human being on the planet earth, that should be his pictures should be net to the definition reasonable doubt. Its Michael Cohen. And if you have a crossexamined mike, why . A lie or being a fraud, i paint shut opposed to the the defendants credibility. If no, as he takes the stand is not on trial he not because hes been saying all sorts of stuff to show any line in lying and no always no, no, no, but it is all about Michael Cohen, just abby asked me a question, why within two months ago, he got in trouble Michael Cohen for submitting fake cases to a judge when he answers probation why to a federal guy. That was something that he lied about, that has something to do with what hes saying on credibility troy is credibility not going to destroy skeletal everybody is. So guys spent christmas and oldest, everyone should know thats really interrupt this really intellectual debate that were having. But can i ask you a question about the Michael Cohen thing because we have heard every thing about his credibility. We will when he takes the stand, which we expect next week Madeline Western is there to testify today and tomorrow about a meeting where theres an email. Shes asking for Michael Cohen descend his Social Security numbers, date of birth, everything you need to get into the white house. Theres the date of when that meeting is we actually have this soundbite of Michael Cohen when hes testifying before the House Oversight committee and 2018 about that meeting at the white house. And essentially what happened picture. This scene in february of 20171 month into his presidency im visiting President Trump in the oval office for the first time. And its truly inspiring he showing me all around and pointing to different paintings and he says to me something to the effect of dont worry michael, youre january and february reimbursement checks are coming. They were fedexed from new york and it takes a while for that to get through the white house system. As he promised i received the first check for the reimbursement of 70,000 not long thereafter okay. So we know that the meeting setup, we have someone whos testifying about the fedex and how that worked, and youve Michael Cohen testifying that. So its not like its just his word alone. There is other kaitlan proved is that he got checks from michael whos allowed to agree reimburse so prove that donald trump donald trump confirm that he was fully aware that he was being really distracting a crime . Yeah. But thats being reimbursed again, the other side of tables doing the perfect Defense Lawyer thing, which is basically a chop up all bit by bit. Were making i think thats entirely fair because yes, i think it is quite its going to be very clear to the jury that these this money was a reimbursement. It wasnt a legal fee but the corporate records being falsified, how do you tie trump to the corporate records being falsified . That i think is still problematic because he knew thats what thats what was going on. That it was being done on his behalf many signing these things that say that theyre legal or in he knew and hes getting and its grossed up, but he couldnt you think he didnt figure out that . Wait a minute. This was 130,000 and im writing checks for 35,000 a month i mean hes a dumb guy, but hes not that Michael Cohen publicly said that trump knew that these that it was being filed as legal expense. Not that im aware of. Michael cohen has publicly said 1 million times that trump is guilty, as can be. And i think this is important one were talking about this meeting, right . But, but he has he hasnt gotten to the debt level that legal specimen, but hes at a podcast is written a book called revenge. You would think if that was right, something he was going to testify to, he would have mentioned and this is exactly the point were going to get into a meeting here. We know the meeting happened. Theres documentation of that, but what happened and what was said is going to entirely come down to Michael Cohens word and its really not a question for the jury. Whos a bigger liar . Michael cohen or donald trump prosecutors have the burden. And if the jury hears Michael Cohens account of what happened, including what he just said there and decides we dont trust this guy Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Theres no number on it, but a very high standard, then they have the right to say not guilty. I think its not a trump versus cohen. Its do we trust cohen to that level of reasonable . I think arthur is making a good point about the dropdown menu, but i still have questions about whether thats really the standard. I mean, if any if there are kingpins who are convicted of crimes that involve things that they dont physically have to do themselves. I mean do they. Have to do the dropdown menu themselves to be guilty of that night. So i guess where do we go . What is between doing the dropdown menu yourself and what the prosecutors would he have known that theres a. Limited whether he knows its a dropdown menu, but theres a limited number of ways to code and expense. I mean, if hes been a Penny Picture and monitored expenses and fedex packages, what do you have known . Oh, yeah. There are six 30 you can code it as legal legal issue. Lead prosecutor number one, the project got to prove that, but one more thing, anderson theres another piece of this. Its not just a bookkeeping. They then have to prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt it was done to commit another crime. And we havent what evidence is there been so far articulating what crime . It is allegedly when i was in quarternary, i heard theyre going to call a federal Election Law Expert or maybe a state Election Law Expert. So theres, theres the Bookkeeping Products and then whats the next ship contribution isnt that what it is . But its, but no, because came out of his own money . No. No. No. The federal Election Campaign act, it would be illegal if i were running if i were running for somethin