code now asked about the bosley guarantee violin earth with liev schreiber, premiere sunday at nine on cnn close captioning is brought to you by tableau. watch, pause and record live tv subscription free. start watching tv for free with tableau switching to tableau has really been a money saver without a monthly corruption is amazing. >> quarter today at tableau tb.com outfront next, breaking news, the trump trial, and its fourth hour tonight of closing arguments the final word from the prosecution still going how is the jury responding? >> plus guilty? that is what former trump white house attorney and outfront regular ty cobb is predicting tonight he's here with us to tell us why and a family affair. trump's adult children in the courtroom today, except for ivanka. where was she? let's go out front good evening. >> i'm erin burnett outfront tonight. the breaking news, the prosecution and trump's criminal trial is about to resume. its closing argument they right now are in a very brief break and it is continuing. we are now going into the evening as they tried to get this done, the prosecutor, joshua steinglass, has been speaking for nearly four hours as after. the defense had gone for two-and-a-half hours, it's been a long de steinglass for the prosecution right now, laying out his case chronologically, as he tries to dismantle team trump's arguments so far, basically, they've tried to take five weeks of testimony from 22 witnesses and put it on an actual timeline. so that means david pecker, hope pick stormy daniel's and a lot of time well over an hour today spent on michael cohen and the reason that steinglass did that was that the defense in their closing statements spent much of the time going after trump's former fixer, steinglass, telling jurors we didn't choose michael cohen to be our witness. we didn't pick them up at the witness. the store the defendant chose michael cohen as his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on his behalf adding this case is not about michael cohen. well, that of course is the big question whether the jury buys that are not according to people inside the courtroom, juries, jurors are paying close attention to steinglass. their eyes watching his every move. and the jurors also intently watching trump's attorney as he tried to pin the entire case on cohen and his lies saying if if putting this the colon, you can't convict at one point. blanche trump's lawyer listed every person that the defense says cohen has lied to and they listed his wife, his children, his co-workers is bank or the job justice department and quote, every single reporter he talked to for about a year. and then they tried to really lay it on fixing michael cohen is the gloat literally the greatest liar of all time. that's what they want the jury to take away from this tonight. and the major question is, how these closing arguments will affect the jury. will they sway the men and women? seven men? and five women on trump to convict or quit. >> paula reid is outfront, live outside the courthouse to begin our coverage. >> and paul, i was down there with today. i know you've been working so much reporting here and you've got some news from your sources on the trump team. what are they telling you? >> well, it's always been the belief that the likely best-case scenario for the trump team would be a mistrial here. but i'm told there are a lot of stearns that if the jury comes back and they are indeed deadlocked after they've done their, their deliberating over several hours or potentially days, that there is an instruction that the judge will give them is the so-called allen charge. this is not special for the trump trial. this something that happens in new york state. but the concern on the trump side is that once the jury gives us some direction, he will tell them he will say, look, i want you to go back continued to deliberate and trying to find some consensus either to acquit or to convict. and there's a worry that that will apply some pressure. the jurors will feel the weight of the historic nature of this case. all the resources that have been expended, and they might try to compromise and potentially convict trump on some charges. like for example, the checks that he signed so obviously a mistrial is something that both sides want to avoid, which is why we heard today, both sides trying to convince the jury to either a quit or convict this is a dark day in america we have wreaked good case that you'd have never been varietal. >> donald trump's hush money trial, entering its final phase today with closing arguments trump attorney todd blanche telling the jury, the district attorney has not met their burden of proof, period maintaining trump's innocence, saying it's a paper case not about an encounter with stormy daniels 18 years ago that trump has unequivocally and repeatedly denied blanche saying the hush money payments were not illegal, and trump was unaware. there's no evidence at all, not even a little bit of evidence that present trump knew anything about these false filings zeroing in on the prosecution's key witness, michael cohen, sharply saying cohen lied to, you. he's literally like an mvp of liars. blanche remarked, telling the jury he lied to you, make no mistake about it, and later calling cohen the gloat greatest liar of all time. blanche claiming cohen was the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, and that the jury should not convict based on his testimony, blanche concluded his argument by telling the jury, you cannot send someone to prison, you cannot convict somebody based on the world herds of michael cohen but that comment anger judge juan merchan, who immediately admonished that comment as outrageous and highly inappropriate later instructing the jury to disregard it, saying they could not discuss consider, or even speculate as to matters related to his sentence or punishment that is a job for the judge, then prosecutors kicked off their closing arguments, play and clean up we didn't choose michael cohen to be our witness. we didn't pick them up at the witness store. joshua steinglass told the jury mr. trump, chose mr. cohen for the same qualities that his attorneys now urge you to reject his testimony insisting it's a deflection for the defense to make the case about cohen steinglass, explain colin's role was just to be a tour guide through the physical evidence but those documents don't lie. and they don't forget the prosecution then accused trump and the publisher of the national enquirer of trying to pull the wool well over voters eyes in a coordinated fashion. they didn't use the term catch and kill, but that's exactly what it was steinglass said. and that's the illegal part because once money starts changing hands on behalf of the campaign, that's federal election campaign finance violations this is not normal legitimate press function. steinglass remarked, calling it over election fraud court continues in the building right behind me. the judge just took the bench again after they're giving the jury a short break. now, prosecutors been going for four hours. >> i just clear the judge's getting a little inpatient with this. >> there's no time limit on closing arguments, but the judge just top problem prosecutors, a short time ago urge them to halt with an argument. they're making about stormy daniels and just move on, citing the length so far of this closing argument, it's earn it's unclear at this point how much longer they're going to go earlier, the judge had said and that the jury was open to going as late as 8:00. >> all right. paula, thank you very much. and here we are. 707 and they're coming back into the courtroom. and it's going to continue. all right. so our experts are here as they're coming back into the courtroom. i just want to start ryan, this allen charge that paul is breaking reporting here. this concern turn that to trump team has, that is this wraps up tonight that their biggest threat could be this allen charge. >> i think that's right. if i were them, i'd be very concerned about it because i think right now they're getting for one or two jurors as the holdouts who then could hang hang a jury, but if they get this kind of charge and they are forced to get a consensus of all the jurors agreeing that puts the pressure on the super majority of the jurors being in favor of a conviction. so i think that's right. >> they cave on the ones who would be the ones that would cause a miss trial what would cave on a few count especially if it's only one juror that's a holdout. they're much more willing to then bend to the super majority of its two together. they might band together, but either way that's not favorable to the defense when the jury gets that message. all right. >> this is this is new york law as paula said. but it does make you look at this a little differently if you were trying to go to pick off one juror, it might change that calculus as they're sitting in that room tonight. so i ran it could. now, obviously it's premature, right? because we don't know when the jury goes back, them have a quick verdict and it may be to quit. they may go back and have a quick verdict to convict. and so until you get a jury that is somewhat deadlocked and are having we'll problems and making a determination rendering a verdict. the ax1 the dynamite charge comes out and just very briefly to be clear, the dynamite charge doesn't say to change your conscientious opinion. in fact, in the language itself, it says, we're not asking you to do that. what we're telling you is that there's no jury who would be better than you, who would evaluate this case differently from you, who would take it more seriously than you. so go back there, do the best you can to not stay wedded to your view if there's an opinion that perhaps can move you out of it and i think that is appropriate. it's been used throughout time and i don't think it is something that should be get overly concerned. all right. so the jury is coming back in the room right now. margo marrow, let me just ask you about as trump came in and he came in before the jury, we saw i don't know if we have the video here, but he gave a fist pump as he walked back in and that was two. >> so you'll you'll see it here all right. >> now, whether he whether he's right or wrong is a separate point, but mark, do you think he's justified to do that at this point from what you've seen in these now, close to seven hours of closing arguments any criminal defendant is not justified in doing that, but mr. trump has shown itself not to be traditional in any form or fashion. so this this pumpers for the tv, it's for the election is for the audience. i if my client ever did that i would take him down a level. you cannot do that for any leasing. what's red and not to mention the jury, the judge might see it. corporis now might say it's just not the way you're supposed to act in a criminal courtroom, but former president trump has never acted the way he was supposed to. most places, particularly not in this courtroom. >> and he giving that this one because he's back in the courtroom so right now as we're all talking, the jury is back and they are going to listen to joshua steinglass, continue with the closing argument. you, terry, are sitting with me, but the half an hour ago, 40 minutes, you were sitting in that room and you sat there for six plus hours? >> okay. >> number one, did could you follow it all that time and you know, you're you're obviously at the standard if you're following this in and out and how was the jury following it? well, i've got to say i was taking copious notes, obviously, and i was following it, but it wasn't easy and i'm a little bit disappointed and steinglass because i thought it was way too detailed. he is making a big deal out of all of these telephone calls. and he started out by talking about some of the points that blanche made when he did his closing argument. that's fine. but he did too much of well, he said this and this is what we think. and i think you have to get into your story immediately. end. he didn't get into the story. he talked about what happened in august of 2015 and the trump tower, how the conspiracy started. then he got into the minutiae, aaron, he started talking about on this day, this call happened in on the 24th at 8:04, and he just went to detail the jury was following. they were all alert. i've got to say, once again, best der of ever seen but i thought it was too detailed and the prosecutor steinglass, just a moment ago said thanks for sticking with us as he's beginning his comments again powerpoint. and he's presented the during mr. trump involved every step of the way thanks for sticking with us and acknowledgement of this. now we're in four plus hours. is that just too long for anybody? and by the way, keeping in mind the story doesn't get a transcript of everything afterwards. that's not the way it goes in the new york criminal system. >> it seems like it's going too long and it seems like he's actually winded it up and done it twice, like he first went through this whole description of the framing the case, and he started again from the crime logical beginning and then walked his way through so he could have done a great just started the chronological beginning and then you've got your narrative and go through it. and so it does seem as though maybe he's trying to also say to the jury this really is as he has said, a mountain of evidence and they now have in presenting them, every piece of that mountain so they're left with that impression, but that the same time and at a certain point it's going to exhaust them. they can't, they can't retain all that information. no. no. i mean, nobody can. right. i mean, it's too much information. it's just it's it's long marc are reporter in the room noted that there was a moment where a juror smiled softly and raised her eyebrows when joshua steinglass cut prosecutor in this four plus our closing argument it said, hope you're getting all of this now, mark, i'm not trying to read anything into her reaction you know, people are standing very close to each other in these settings and having some sort of a connection. it does raise the question though bigger picture have the jurors already made up their minds and obviously you've done so many cases from zimmerman and others. is this how much weight do these are? arguments have i think the arguments have a lot of weight with the lawyers who are stating them because that's why we went to law school. >> right. but the harsh reality use as human psychology of jurors as we bring them into your courtroom, sit around for a couple of hours and give him a bunch of information it's always been my position and most jurors individually have made up their mind well, before closing argument, unfortunately, they may have made in mind before the trial is finished. the evidence presentation, but that's just the harsh reality of who we are because we are so used to making our decisions in a moment. it is not human, humanly possible for us to wait until the very end, but we tell them to so in this case, the smile by that when jurors policy in that going got it already. >> move on. and i will tell you, i think four hours for closing argument by the state is way too low keep it simple. here's the fast. we proved it klopp in a dozen, maybe facts that are undeniable and then show the law and say, go back and convict, and tell them that we know you listen and move forward this for hours. i think really almost causes if you think about it very quickly prosecution is hurt by complication the defense is helped by complications. you make it more complicated. there's reasonable doubt. >> you go in and it's very simply. >> and then the jury will listen to you and building and so many complications that the job go ahead and thought about the app. now i'm worried about and to that point, steinglass right now is put up a timeline and we're back in august of 2000151 it could be forgiven for thinking, oh, my god, we're back in august of 2015 and it's only seven, 14 and how am i going to be here tonight? >> because that's a lot of years to get to where we are without question and i do agree with the panel and i will not be just a contrarian, just to be one, the reality is, is that this is human nature. when you have and you're trying to relate to people, you want to connect with them. you want to make your point and sit down, tell him what you're gonna do. do it. tell him you did it this is what trump did. this was his intention and doing it. this is motivation with respect to doing and this is how he did it. >> that's it. >> and so i just think there comes a point where too much is way hey, too much. >> and i think the reality is when you lose people, you do yourself a disservice and that's not the point of closing argument. the point of it is two summed up, bring it home and let them know. this is why i win. you lose the jury, you lose the case. i want to bring in paula reid here because as she's again, outside the courthouse with your sources on both teams of attorneys here, paula. but i'm curious reyes, as to what you understand the strategy of trump's team wasn't me. that was a two-and-a-half-hour. a closing argument, right. did they did they think that was going to be short relative to what the prosecution is going to is doing right now, or do you think they're surprised? hi, by the length of this prosecution close yeah. >> i think they are earlier today, as we reported, they expected to go about two-and-a-half, three hours because they believe that's about as long as any juror wants to hear from the lawyer and closing, i top-line stuck pretty close to that. he was around three hours. but they had another goal and that was to prevent joshua steinglass from going into who tomorrow. so they were trying to keep it short enough that assigned glass did try to draw this out too long. >> it would annoy the jury now, with some help from the jurors, who are willing to stay late. >> hey, tonight and the judge, it appears that this will likely wrap today, but they have a lot of reasons for 1d to keep it tight what was so interesting to me though, about the defense this morning is it had been laid out for me that they there were of course going to try to distance the defendant from the allegedly falsified documents. courts, you're going to do that. that's right. the heart of the case. horse, they're going to attack michael cohen's credibility but what was surprising is everything that happened in-between those two arguments, todd, blanche spending a lot of time getting a lot of oxygen to things that really just didn't matter. and i think that that's one of the things that prizing that he brought up. karen mcdougal, that he went into the weeds and a lot of issues. >> these are really won't make or break the case. >> and the general consensus seems to be, he could have done a great job in just an hour, hit a few key themes and instead he was, as he has been throughout this trial, effective at times, but also rambling and taking a long winding road to get to that key point. >> well, an interesting as you point out, maybe both could have done what they needed to do an hour, right. and which which raises the question here as to why they're going so long and i'm wondering taking a step back here. the jury's given a week off not and able to go about in the regular world, not sequestered and they don't get transcripts of what happened in the prior month. so is there somehow a psychological pressure on the lawyers well, they checked out for a week and they're not gonna remember anything i said in the past month, so i'm going to try to like diarrhea them out. the whole thing today it's a great point that could be why they've overcompensated are compensated in this direction because the jurors memory will fade over six day period and now