Hour. A live look at New York State Supreme Court here in manhattan where any moment now we are expected to see the former President Donald Trump walked back through those doors. The prosecution is set as he enters on the stand. Most people as we can you explain to me what he did and what they are actually charging them for and the truth is i cant because it is misdemeanor based on something that its civil not criminal in their apple elevating it to federal because he is running for offic. Sandra here we go. We expect to see the former president any moment now. John, great to be with you. Sandra im john roberts in washington and this is america reports. So for the prosecution is attempting to restore cohens credibility after the defense painted him as a serial liar during cross invented stomach investigation he admitted to stealing Tens Of Thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization. Sandra and he conceded that he does have financial interest in the outcome of the trial. How does the jury see all of this . John we have a team of legal and political voices to help walk us through testimony this hour. Sandra first we kick things off with jonathan turley. He has been inside the court over floor room all morning. Jonathan, great to have you with us. Please do tell us your take away so far. This is been rather otherworldly to sit and watch this. Its like youve entered a parallel universe. How this case is going forward, i cant explain. You had a disbarred convicted Serial Perjure on the stand matteroffactly detailing how he stole Tens Of Thousands of dollars from his clients. And what is really funny is than the prosecutor gets up and says i want you to tell the jury once again you arent charged with anything, right . I wanted to stand up and say yeah but you should have. He just admitted he committed grand larceny. He told you that and you instead decided he was more valuable to pursue a dead misdemeanor on a bookkeeping violation. John New York State LawStatute Of Limitations on larceny i believe is five years. So he said that knowing that the statutes already run and he probably would not be charged by bragg but should he at the very least look into this . Thats the question. He has been under investigation for many, many years. It doesnt mean that he couldnt determine this but the interesting thing about Michael Cohen is how blase this all is. I stole money from my client. I lied repeatedly. I violated all of these oaths. And people are just nodding and you feel like you are the only one in the room saying this is not normal. This is not how trials are supposed to go. But the prosecutor then got up to try to resuscitate and pound on his chest and get his heart going again. It made it even worse because much of what the prosecutor talked about didnt change the thrust of his arguments. So at the end of the day, this is a shiny object that is being used to distract the jury from the fact that they have a clearing problems. They had witnesses that said it we listed this as a Legal Expense because we paid it to a lawyer. You have the key role of weisselberg who is sitting 15 minutes from here who was the one who said why do we treat this as a retainer which probably made sense to him because he should have had a retainer that he was a really bad lawyer. Like many things, he didnt do that but now prosecutors are using his failure as a basis to convict his client and he is adding to that and saying i think you should send my client to jail for following my legal advice. Sandra based on everything youve just said, are you in the camp of the former president and not testifying or taking the stand himself . He cant testify but that door was closed by judge mershon. Judge mershon granted such a broad scope for crossexamination. No lawyer would let a client get on a stand with the order of judge mershon. And i have to say i was really struck today by what i considered to be fairly onesided rulings. He hammered the defense sustaining a lot of objections some of which i dont understand the basis for his order and he was far more solicitous toward the prosecution. But the biggest problem that we saw today is one of the reversible issues. Once again, he allowed the prosecutors and Michael Cohen to talk about how there are Campaign Violations in the case. And there are no Campaign Violations. So after this happened again, he gave this instruction saying disregard that on the merits. They are going to disregard that on the merit. They are hearing it. You cant have an expert on that issue but Michael Cohen is here to lay out the federal election law because thats whats going to happen. John with respect i used to go from Downtown Manhattan to laguardia once a week and i cant ever remember Passing Rikers within 15 minutes but i appreciate it. You are talking to a chicagoan so thats right. John lets talk about the defensive strategy. One person they would like to call as brad smith appeared hes a federal Elections Official and they wanted to testify about the difference between a Campaign Contribution or a campaign expense. Pointing in some degree to the potential underlying crime here because we still dont know what it is. Get the judge wants to put strict limitations on his testimony. Does he just want to tie the prosecutions hands behind their back here and say go for it but you are going to get anywhere . With the federal election law expert, a lot of judges would probably reach that same conclusion because it is the domain of the judge to say what the law is. The problem is what this judge has done with the rest of the case. The reason they are asking to call an expert is because merchan has made a mess of the case. I promise you that jury believes there are federal election law violations here. In merchan has allowed that to occur. I believe it wont have much of an impact. They will want to hear the repeated reference to these violations. The other question is going to be robert castella. I thought it was interesting that the defense spent so much time on castella and he emphasized how cohen request for information to go to giuliani. As a defense attorney, thats what i would do if i was thinking of calling him because that would negate the damaging email that refers to a back channel to giuliani. But he also nailed cohen because cohen said he did not Trust Costello to tell him much and he only spoke to costello may be a dozen times. He underestimated that sevenfold and you had blanche say you called him over 75 times. You spent nine hours just on those Telephone Conversations and it blasted away what cohen said previously. Sandra based on what you just said, is there any possibility that the former president is reentering the court room with a fist bump. Jonathan, he is back in. Based on what you just said, is there any possibility that it could change . That the prosecution could call another witness . The prosecution may have to call a witness just in order to get this last document in. Which they want to show a picture of the body guard with trump on the day of this call. Its a weird effort. Its another example of a strategy to prove things that are not important to the case. They are saying he was standing next to trump so when cohen called, the bodyguard, he could have turned to trump. The problem is that the call only lasted about a minute and 30 seconds. And the purpose of the call was about a teenager harassing co cohen. When it was over, there was a text saying thats what the call talked about. The defense went ballistic and said we never said he couldnt speak to the president. We said cohen committed perjury on the content of the call. The judge is going to come back and one of the issues as hearsay. Whether they would have to have another witness, and in order to make that document work. John i guess they can always called kay shook telling her if they wanted to. Professor turley, great to get your thoughts in court gets back underway in manhattan. Interesting to note Alan Dershowitz is in the courtroom this afternoon. Hes been very critical of the prosecutions case here. We will get a real inside look on all of trumps legal troubles here. From a fellow who was deputy also represented trump in his first impeachment trial. Eric herschmann will be joining us. Stay tuned for that. The future is not just going to happen. You have to make it. And if you want a successful business, all it takes is an idea, and now becomes the future where you grew a dream into a reality. The all new godaddy airo. Put your Business Online in minutes with the power of ai. Sandra a live look at lower manhattan. This was moments ago. We will have a live look and im in it. This was a former president reentering the courtroom with his legal team. Court will be back in session shortly. But he walked in at about two oh eight eastern time so we shall get word that the witnesses back to the stand at any moment now. Nate is live outside of the court. We are waiting for our first read out and think should be underway shortly but what can you tell us. We are awaiting prosecutors to continue their questioning of Michael Cohen and after that trumps lawyers will have an opportunity. Earlier, cohen testified about his more extensive than previously reported conversations on bob castella in 2018. He said he understood at the time that those conversations were privileged which contradicts cohens lame earlier which said he thought castella would funnel information to trump through really giuliani. The big moment ever was talking about this morning or this afternoon from this morning is that cohen testified that he stole 30,000 from the Trump Organization. He received 50,000 for a payment from a tech Company Called adventure but cohen only pay 20,000 of the overall bill which led to an exchange with trump attorney todd blanche asking straight out did you steal from the Trump Organization based on the expected reimbursement to which cohen replied with an affirmative yes, sir. Blanche also questioned cohen about work he did for other clients during the time that he was under investigation. Cohen testified that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from clients including, and this is important, clients that he spoke to as little as six times. Thats important because he testified that he received money from the Trump Organization in 2017 and testified that he did very little work for the Trump Organization which is part of what he says was the Reimbursement Plan for the Stormy Daniels deal but of course trump maintains that all payments were legitimate Legal Expenses and now that cohen confirms that he did work for trump and 2017, he said he didnt expect to be paid for that work but he has agreements with other clients at the time doesnt sort of reflect doing very little work for a lot of money relatively speaking. The questioning of cohen is set to continue momentarily. Baback to you. Sandra we are getting worried that the judges back on the bench and they are discussing the prosecutions request to enter two skills into evidence. Nate outside the courthouse for us. Nate, thanks. John. John lets bring in eric herschmann. Former assistant d. A. In manhattan. For more analysis on this, eric thanks for joining us good we should point out that he is in jerusalem where he has been living but he has been following this case very closely. Eric, i wanted to ask first of all how much damage do you think todd blanche did to Michael Cohen in the crossexamination this morning when he got him to admit that he stole some 60,000 from the Trump Organization . I think todd has done an amazing job. I think this is just another point of reference of who Michael Cohen really is. Hes a liar, he committed tax evasion, and now he had to admit under oath that he stole from the person he admired the most. I thought it was a devastating thing for todd blanche and a benefit for President Trump. Sandra we are left wondering how this is going over with the jury. Thats what matters. Ive tried a lot of cases in manhattan and i was senior Trial Attorney in the manhattan d. A. s office. I think that any jury would be wondering what is this case about . And ive had enough trouble myself in talking to former colleagues trying to understand it. When i was a prosecutor Robert Morgan was the wellrespected longtime District Attorney of new york. I cant conceive of a situation in which he wouldve ever approved a case like this. And as you know i have not been willing to im sorry. You go. John i was going to say you know kerri kupec very well appear she was over at the Department Of Justice when you are at the white house peered she said in a case like this which is precedentsetting, the first time a president of the United States has been hauled into court for you want to make sure that the case is rocksolid and very tight. Everyone should understand why the trial is happening and the facts are understandable. The law is clear in the witnesses are credible. It doesnt seem to meet that bar in any way, shape, or form eric. Its not even close. I will tell you i hate to bring up a peer of mine who worked with me in the d. A. s office, but Eliot Spitzer and i were contemporaries. If this were as a legal theory that people dream was humanly possible, Eliot Spitzers conduct in New York State would have been the poster child for bringing this type of case. And they never did. And no one would ever consider bringing a case like this because it is unprecedented. And in my view you dont test the new legal theories from the d. A. s office when you are dealing with a president of the United States, a president ial election, and what has to be described as one of the worst witnesses anyone has ever seen. Sandra based on that statement, eric, where do you believe the prosecution goes next with this as we do await official word that cohen is back on the Witness Stand . I think they will try to do the best they can to rehabilitate at least some part of him. To say you did get these payments and this is generally what it says in the paperwork. But i dont see a scenario where he can be rehabilitated. Its hard to understand how the judge is not going to grant a direct and verdict because there is no evidence that links President Trump to any recordkeeping whatsoever. I just dont understand it and i dont think any of my colleagues in any of the people he worked within the d. A. s office. Theyve all said to me eric, go out and talk about this. You have the experience to address it and they are all unanimously, whether they like President Trump or are never trumps, theyve said they are embarrassed by the d. A. s office bringing this type of case and it has destroyed the integrity of my old office. Spoon you can be embarrassed of what the das doing, you can have your opinions at this is not worth the paper it was printed on but here we are in the courtroom and the cases going forward. You defended the president and his first impeachment trial. If you were on his defense team now, what would you do after the prosecution rests and it is your turn . I would consider calling bob costello but it would be very limited. It would be did you advise Michael Cohen, did he make Certain Missions to you, what to the site. And that would be the end of it. I dont think i would get into anything else with him and limit the crossexamination from the d. A. s office onto that subject. But i dont think i would put President Trump on the stand. Sandra thats still a question at the hour. A little bit of a teaser we have a legal panel coming up next. Right when you said possibly bringing castella as a witness we are left wondering if the former president is still considering as he had said a long ago in the past that he was willing to testify. I think he would discuss it but my belief is that the advice of his counsel is do not do that in light of the rulings of the court. It would make the crossexamination a total chaotic circumstance. John in terms of calling bob costello, the testimony that he gave to the subcommittee on the weaponization of government was completely contradictory to what Michael Cohen was saying on the stand. But completely in line with what cohen was telling everybody including me back in 2018 that the president didnt know about this, he didnt have anything to do with the payment, that he didnt get paid back, nothing like that. But if you put costello on the stand, does that not open him up to all of these inquiries about what was his relationship with giuliani, what was going on, were there back channels, or could todd blanche take that out of the picture with his questioning of cohen this morning . What todd did was leave open the door to potentially call bob. My personal belief is i wouldnt do it but if they are going to do it, it would have to be very, very, very tightly tailored. Sandra just getting a readout that is slow to update here but after lunch the judge that he read through the testimony of dr. Browni