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 that true, mr. Pecker . Was that your purpose in locking up the Karen Mcdougal story, to influence the election . To which pecker replied yes. That came after trumps defense team in Cross Examination tried painting the picture that what the National Enquirer did for trump in 2016 was just business. Nbcs Vaughn Hillyard is reporting from outside the courthouse in new york city. Also with us, paul butler, former federal prosecutor, Georgetown School of law professor and an msnbc legal analyst, and Tristan Snell former assistant to attorney general for new york who led the Trump University investigation. He is also the author of Taking Down Trump 12 rules for prosecuting donald trump by someone who did it successfully. So vaughn, catch us up on the big moments so far and how trump has been reacting to whats unfolding. Reporter right, chris, the Cross Examination from Donald Trumps defense team ended after nearly four hours, and over the course of those four hours, this morning here you have the prosecution or i should say you have the defense team for donald trump repeatedly trying to muddy the waters. Calling into question, past statements, recollection of david pecker over his conversations with donald trump in 2015, 2016. His conversations with federal prosecutors back in 2018, even american medias letter to the fec as recently as 2021, and over the course of this, they called into question Michael Cohens credibility through david peckers own testimony, and now what we saw over the last half hour from this redirect from the prosecution was an attempt for the jury to refocus in on what david pecker testified to their initial questions. And that was the fact that this was done in an effort to influence the 2016 election. You have them focusing on the fact that this was an unusual relationship. Folks will recall that yesterday under Cross Examination he referenced Arnold Schwarzenegger and the fact that they had a similar relationship with the former california governor during his campaign in the early 2000s in california, but the distinction that the prosecution is now making through david pecker is that there is no more than 20,000 ever spent on sourcing to quash any negative stories about schwarzenegger and theres no previous candidate ever including schwarzenegger in which david pecker or the National Enquirer had agreed to be the eyes and ears in work with such direct cahoots with a candidate or with the campaign, and they once again just had david pecker acknowledge that by buying the rights to Karen Mcdougals story that there was, quote, zero intention to ever publish her story, that it was all an effort to, quote, help candidate donald trump. The prosecution wants this afternoon in finishing its redirect to hone in for this jury. Again, the focus that david pecker is here to tell the story that, number one, they used david pecker and the National Enquirer to influence the 2016 election and that, number two, that they sought after these negative stories alleging Extramarital Affairs with donald trump in order to keep them from the American Public before november of 2016, chris. Okay. Paul, trumps defense drilled in again today into the words standard in questioning pecker, they drew that running negative stories like one on trumps opponents was standard because it was good for business, but in redirect, steinglass also now honed in on that term. He asked is it standard to be negotiating with a president ial candidates fixer on an agreement and is a 1 million Liquidated Damages Clause on a 30,000 source agreement Standard Operating Procedure. Whos being more effective on the use of the word standard and why does it matter so much . So i think they were both making decent points. This trial is about trumps motive in arranging this hush money payment, Hush Money Payments arent illegal unless youre disguising Business Records or falsifying Business Records, which is what the prosecution is alleging, and so trumps defense is, well, a lot of people did these deals where they tried to protect their private information. It wasnt about the campaign. Its about peoples reputation or trumps case, it was about protecting his family. But again, if youre going to do a deal like that, do you really pay all this money that trump was willing to pay both Karen Mcdougal and Stormy Daniels. That hasnt been the practice in other cases. And mr. Peckers key concession both on direct and now in response to the redirect was that trump knew that this was about the campaign. Thats what alvin bragg has to prove and i think on that point hes proving it. So this, tristan is exactly why i was surprised to hear, were following our blog, other blogs from people who are in the room. They talk about jurors being rapt. They are leaning in. They are taking copious notes. A lot of this is testimony is pretty inside baseball. Whos doing a better job here . From your reading of it . Yeah, look, i think theyre both doing a pretty good job, but i think the prosecution is scoring more points right now. When the jury is leaning in, and theyre paying attention, look, a lot of this is inside baseball, but a lot of this is pretty direct and clear. Like, what was the purpose of all of this. I think that theres a certain amount of common sense here that i think the jurors are going to bring to bear. What was the purpose of paying this money. Thats really what this whole thing comes down to. The fact that the money was paid is not really in question. The fact and its not illegal, keep pointing that out. And then were going to get to the part where its clear that Michael Cohen invoiced it and it was papered as Legal Expenses to him when it wasnt. Thats going to be clear too. The question is why did they do it . And i think the fact that the jury is leaning in and the fact that youre seeing some really great stuff here on redirect, i think that the prosecution scored a lot of points today. So when youre talking with these kinds of things, and again, im not hearing it. Im only reading what can be typed very quickly, is this something that you dont necessarily need the jury to follow in every detail right now . If its that important youll bring it back this closing or with a later witness. Of course, exactly. Youre laying the groundwork. Youre laying the groundwork. A lot of these exchanges here, these are very simple questions and very simple answers. Some of them arent. Some of them are much more involved. Some of them are actually very, very cut and dry. The purpose of it was to influence the election. Pecker saying, yes, weve put that up on the screen a number of times now. Thats a key thing. The jury heard that. Like a lot of those sort of big moments in there, the jury was dialed in. From all reports, they were paying attention. They got those key moments in it, and, yes, if the prosecutors do their job right, and i trust they will, theyre going to keep coming back to these key points as the trial progresses. Let me ask you about one of those moments that will seem, i think, pretty straightforward to most people, but i want your interpretation of it. Trumps lawyer pressed pecker on his efforts to sell the National Enquirer during talks for that nonprosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in new york. Bove asked pecker, you knew that to consummate that deal, you had to clear up the investigation, to which pecker replied, yes. Whats the significance there . So, chris, at the end of the trial, the judge is going to instruct the jury that the defense does not have to prove anything. Its the prosecution that has the heavy burden of proof, so mr. Boves shot is to plant reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. So his Cross Examination is trying to suggest to the jury that the prosecutions first witness is compromised, and thus, hes not credible. If he admits to wrongdoing, then hes going to lose money from this deal with trying to sell the National Enquirer and thats also why mr. Bove is focused on peckers nonprosecution deal. He wants the jury to think that pecker is basically marching to alvin braggs orders because pecker doesnt want to go to jail himself. So thats also why he told the jury that trump thanked that trump had thanked mr. Pecker a few days before the inauguration even though mr. Pecker earlier told the fbi that trump had not thanked him. So chris, for an effective Cross Examination, mr. Bove doesnt need a perry mason moment where pecker breaks down on the stand. All he has to do is kind of chip away at mr. Peckers testimony, and i think hes done a decent job of that. Yeah, there are points at which, again, reporting from inside, they talk about the way bove was approaching this, the description of david pecker is that hes a smaller man, fairly slight, that he has a kind of a soft demeanor, which belies, right, the jobs that he actually did, but thats the way hes coming across on the stand, and at one point, bove got pretty pointed and raised his voice a little bit. Are you very careful when youre doing a Cross Examination about how you come across in contrast to however the witness presents . Right, because theres two things youre trying to do there. One of them is to get the witness to say things that help your case. Thats actually what youre trying to get them to do. Youre trying to get that opposing witness to say things that help your case. The other thing youre trying to do at all times is to be likable and relatable with the jury. If the jury doesnt like you, youre toast. So yeah, i dont think its great for bove to then be striking too much of a contrast. Youve got a witness thats being nice and courteous and so forth and so on, and then youve got a Defense Counsel whos ripping them apart, thats not a good combo. Thats a bad contrast. Its not going to make the jury really like bove very much. I think, look, they managed to find some Little Things in there to make people question peckers credibility. But i think the one thing that a lot of people have is common sense, and this will get carried into the jury room, is that if youve got an alleged criminal on trial and the other witnesses are other people who did bad things, well, thats just how it works. Like to catch a criminal youre probably going to have other people that engaged in criminal activity up on the stand. Thats just the way these things go. And the prosecution will probably point that out at different points here. A lot of these people, their hands arent clean either, but they came clean, they cooperated with us, and theyre now telling the truth, and thats exactly how youre not going to get that persons Criminal Culpability examined unless you look at the other people that engaged in criminal activity with them. I should say, paul, that theyve just broken for lunch. The expectation is that they maybe have another half hour or less and then recross but theyre out until 12 15. I want to go back to this idea about even though the questions get asked multiple times, and sometimes they can get asked in a very convoluted way. At the heart of this, right, to some extent is intent. Why did catch and kill happen . Did it happen for Business Reasons . Did it happen because this was Standard Operating Procedure, or did it happen because they were trying to protect the campaign. And in one of the very last exchanges that just happened in the last couple of minutes, heres what david pecker said. Those stories that came up and he means the negative stories that would appear, i would speak to Michael Cohen and tell him that these are the stories that are going to be for sale. If we dont buy them, someone else would. How important is that for the case the prosecution is trying to make and that bove was trying to disprove . Yeah, its huge, so every one of the governments witnesses who has knowledge will say that this catch and kill deal and the Hush Money Payments were all about trying to install donald trump in the white house. And trump isnt going to present one witness who will contradict that based on what we know because everybody who was involved in this, hope hicks, mr. Pecker, donald trump, and Michael Cohen all say that it was about the camcampaign, and i think that the direct on direct examination, mr. Pecker did say that Michael Cohen was kind of full of himself. He was trying to put his fingers in everything, and he was acting like he was a campaign lawyer, but that wasnt his job. So that will support trumps defense that it wasnt his intent to try to win the election by shutting up Stormy Daniels and Karen Mcdougal, maybe thats something that Michael Cohen was trying to do, but trump will try to get the jury to think he didnt have anything to do with that, that Michael Cohen was a lone wolf. For the first time our team that has been inside the courthouse can join us live to talk about what they saw. I want to bring in msnbc Legal Correspondent lisa rubin, msnbc contributor and New York Times investigative correspondent sue craig, and legal analyst Kristy Greenberg as i always do, i want to get, first of all, lisa, just your big takeaways from the morning because, again, were reading the document. Were not in there. But for the last day of whats been a long week, it sounds like there was some real moments in that courtroom. There definitely were. I would say today was less successful for emil bove who is the lawyer who is questioning david pecker from trumps side, and in particular, he was trying to exploit perceived inconsistencies in peckers testimony. Not only his testimony here but contrasting it with things that he has said over the years to state and federal prosecutors. Chris, you might be asking yourself, how does trumps team know what david pecker said to state and federal prosecutors, and thats because its discoverable. And in particular, the notes that the fbi took during david peckers meeting with federal prosecutors were discoverable in this court, and usable for impeachment purposes. That doesnt always happen in federal court. I thought that was not as successful as bove wanted it to be because he was sort of fixated on small details. He was also trying to elicit from Pecker Inconsistencies between what pecker himself had said and things that his lawyers had represented to state and federal prosecutors. Largely that was shut down. The one thing that i thought bove had some success at was planting in the jurors mind the idea that david pecker confessed to certain conduct not because he actually did it but because at the time that the sdny came knocking, the Manhattan Bureau of the department of justice, david pecker and ami were trying to close a 100 million transaction with the hudson news group, and his insinuation was if you didnt resolve this investigation, that transaction would have fallen apart. It turns out it did fall apart, although im not sure exactly why. But i thought that sort of might have created an impression in the jurors minds, this guy had a motivation not to tell the truth, and it was beyond saving his own hide. It was for the thing that he has told us throughout motivated him programs more than anything, which is the financial bottom line. And then of course Josh Steinglass got to start his redirect, and the thing that i thought he was great at doing was dismantling the trumps Team StandardOperating Procedure theme. They tried yesterday a million times to get pecker to explain that various facets of the trump arrangement were actually just Standard Operating Procedure