So what we could expect from the prosecution as they continue their questioning of daniels is why ultimately there in those closing weeks of october 2016 she decided to go, number one, with the 130,000 payment. An agreement to sign this nda with trump and cohen versus say going to an outside publication and having her story going public there in the closing days of the 2016 election. But then we could also likely hear the prosecution ask her about her further understanding between her conversations with Keith Davidson, who was her attorney at the time, about what she understood that this agreement entailed. And what led over the course of 2017 into 2018 to her ultimately going public with her story after it was first reported about in the Wall Street Journal and sitting down for an interview with 60 minutes in which she detailed her allegations. Donald trump, we know from testimony from david pecker, previously last week, had suggested that donald trump was irate when she went public and she should owe him 1 million for every time she spoke his name. So we could get into that sort of back and forth as to what she understood the agreement to mean and how long the agreement would contractually bind her to not speaking publicly. So i want to go back into the document because judge merchan has gotten back on the bench and he said he asked the Defense Counsel if they wanted a limited instruction on daniels claim about threats that happened. She said in a parking lot, this is todd blanche and im going to bring this on both to you onset. Duncan and shan. We move for a mistrial based on the testimony this morning. The guardrails were thrown aside. That testimony was so undually prejudicial to trump and the charges in the case and the testimony about 2006 is way different from the stories and im literally reading it as theyre typing it in. That she was Pedaling Back in 2016. Is this something todd blanche needs to do and would be normal to do or is it something the judge has to seriously consider . Todd blanche is making a record. Obviously hes moving for mistrial. It is not going to be granted. Frankly, the prosecution is walking a tight rope with a witness whos going too far. The prosecutor keeps asking questions. Merchan has already several times said just answer the question being posed. The prosecution is trying to keep her walking in sort of a line here through the questioning. What shes saying is unto itself very salacious. This, remember, was the story donald trump was trying to keep from coming out right before the election. Right after the access Hollywood Tape came out. So its salacious by its own nature, but what the judge is trying to do is have them not infect the proceeding with something that is so beside the point. That is so prejudicial that it outweighs whats called the probative effect. Its outweighed by how prejudicial is the details of it. So theyre trying to walk a fine line here. Theyre moving for a mistrial. It is going to be denied. Hes making a record for appeal so its what he has to do. But at the end of the day, its a reminder that this testimony has to basically be narrow. Its in a way, unnecessary testimony because it doesnt get at one of the elements of the offense and to the extent it gets at anything that is related to the offense itself, its just that there was 130,000 here. It violated then Campaign Finance laws. The rest of it is relevant because the story was going to come out before the election. Let me read more from the Argument Blanche is trying to make before the judge. He says all these details that Stormy Daniels revealed during her testimony related specifically to what happened in that hotel room and the allegations of the sexual encounter, he says all this has nothing to do with this case and is extraordinarily prejudicial and the only reason they asked aside from embarrassment is to inflame the jury. There was testimony about a second alleged sexual advance sometime later, totally irrelevant to the case. Blanche goes on to say she testified there was communications with trump afterwards and that something bad was going to happen. She made sure to meet him in Public Places and this was said repeatedly and the jury hears it. So hes going on and on. Hes going through different pieces of his testimony, revisiting these different cases. And blanche says theres just no way to Unring The Bell in our view. Shan, what do you make of this argument . Is there merit to it . Not for purposes of the mistrial. Theres not going to be a mistrial here because these arguments would have been made previously and the judge gave them guidelines. For the mistrial, they have to argue that despite how the judge wanted to proceed, somehow its gone off the rails. Blanche appears to be rearguing what he would have said beforehand. On the salacious point, understand why he has to keep making that point and making his record. But i think theres too much emphasis on that word even. Its not Stormy Daniels fault or the prosecutions fault that people think this is a salacious event. Its just what happened. And they need the prosecution to supply the full circumstances of this to bring it to life and frankly, the more blanche emphasizes how salacious it is, hes not in front of the jury at the moment, but it also emphasizes why it would be embarrassing for trump. And this whole notion of a motive that may be its to protect his wife versus political ultimately doesnt fly. Let me go back to what hes saying. He said hes also inserted safety. That goes back to this incident and we talked about it before the break where there was an encounter she said she had in a parking lot in las vegas. My daughter and i were going to a mommy and me Workout Class. I was approached by a man in a parking lot in las vegas. I thought he was the husband of one of the other women in the class. He threatened me not to continue to tell my story. That was in 2015. Right. What story . About my encounter with mr. Trump. Youve gone way off the rails when youre bringing safety in it. The prosecution is entitled to bring this in. Theyre making a choice to bring it in and theyre running a risk theyre going to get slapped down by the judge a bit in doing it and theyre again walking this tight rope. But this is well within their rights to bring in. Why would the prosecution feel like this is necessary for the jury to hear . Because at the core of this is that the defendant in the case was covering up some horrible news. I think the jurys entitled to know what it was. At the end of the day, what he was so afraid of. What motivated his action. What the prosecutions going to do at the end of the day is going to close and theyre going to go through these Jury Instructions and theyre going to ask if mr. Trump had the intent, the specific intent to cover up these falsified Business Records or have them falsified in order to violate the Campaign Finance laws. Theyre going to argue that he did it because of this bombshell story. If you let it go unsaid, the defense is going to argue there was no bombshell story. There was nothing that was going to come out. This was a big nothing burger and this was not going to happen. So theyre entitled to argue it. Now, they dont need all this detail. They could just say there was a sexual encounter. They dont need to go into this level of detail and i think theyre trying to pull it back a bit so they were walking that fine line. At the end of the day, theyre entitled to argue that mr. Trump was very, very motivated to keep this particular, horrible, horrible story quiet. On that safety issue on that question. Theres a good argument that they should object and stop that from coming in, but it helps her look more credible. Which is shes coming forward and telling her story despite the consequences. Theres pressure on her. She feels threatened. So shes sitting there today as a witness who has weathered a lot and is under a lot of stress. It helps portray her in a more humane fashion and makes her more sympathetic to the jury. Will the judge rule on this from the bench . I think its highly likely it will get shot down. Now we have the District Attorneys Office and prosecutor making her argument for answering the claims and allegations that blanche has risen. She says is story is highly appropriate going to motive. This is not a new account and she goes on, this is again, not new. This is not a new account. They opened the door to this, she argues. That it was something Donald Trumps team had opened the door. I seem to remember right before they even called daniels to the stand, even before the first witness took the stand this morning ahead of daniels testimony, there was a discussion about some of the parameters around her testimony and specific to the sexual encounter and how many details should be allowed. But the defense all along had opportunity throughout her testimony to object, right . Why wouldnt they have objected when she was making, telling the story about that encounter in the parking lot, shan . Because they want a mistrial. They want that to come out then they can say you cant Unring The Bell. If they affirmatively stopped it before it came out, then its protected. By letting it come out, theyll have a better argument for mistrial, which will still be denied. Vaughn, lay out that this is a story that along the way has changed. Reporter right. This is the argument that trumps attorney is saying is part of their arguments in daniels testimony should have been limited in this first place here. Theyre contending the story she would have told publicly in 2016 and her story did become public, would vary from what she is telling here the jury today. Making the case that right, if we are expecting the prosecution in a Closing Arguments to suggest that the reason why Stormy Daniels story was so pertinent and why 130,000 payoff took place to keep it from going public was because of how much a bombshell the details of her story would be. It was out there in 2011 on a blog. The fact she had an encounter with donald trump, but this, what the prosecution is going to argue, is it was the details that were going to matter so much in why donald trump wanted to conceal the story and have these Hush Money Payments concealed through calling these Legal Expenses here. So what the argument is from Donald Trumps attorney is that this is the kind of attorney that makes it possible to come back from and that her story she has now chronicled to the jury is not the same story that would have been public for the American Public ahead of the 2016 election that the prosecution is prepared to say worked as a contribution and one that would have been more damaging to donald trump. I want to go to peter baker and we are hearing a little bit from trump now. Just moments before he returned to the courtroom before the break was over. At 1 56 afternoon, he writes on truth social, quote, the prosecution, which has no pace, has gone too far. Mistrial. Whats your reaction, peter, to this comment and overall, how donald trump has been characterized this morning . It sounds like he has certainly held his tongue in court. Hes at times had his eyes closed. At times, hes been talking quietly with his lawyers. Certainly engaged in the testimony. Yeah. Look, that social media message, who is the audience . Of course, thats not the judge. Hes not making a legal argument. Hes making an argument to the voting public, to his supporters. What hes trying to say to them is focus on the injustice to me. Not on the tawdry details of what i did or may have done or was alleged to have done. In other words, this is a day that if you step back for a minute, we have been waiting for in some ways for seven or eight years. You see these two players in this drama, donald trump and Stormy Daniels, confronting each other in a court of law. And she in that court of law at a moment when he faces the penalty of possibly being incarcerated, shes telling a story thats not very flattering to him. And he wants of course, as a candidate, to distract from those details to focus on what he says are the injustices of the proceeding. Thats why you see that message. Todd blanche is arguing inside the courtroom as we go back into the document, that theres absolutely no reason for a mistrial, but the exact quote is i dont think theres any basis for a mistrial. But before that, the ada, the assistant district attorney, said they have drafted a limited instruction that merchan can give to prevent prejudice, but a mistrial is not warranted. Explain what that is. Basically, theyre concerned about protecting their record. Both sides are. And the defense is moving for a mistrial. Theyre saying if theres a conviction, it might be a basis for an appeal. The prosecution is trying to protect their record, also. So they want, the jurys heard it all. So eliminating instruction doesnt do that much, but in the legal fiction that a juror would reject something that the judge told them to reject, which is really the law of the case, limiting instruction would be something the jurors are only in their deliberations allowed to consider so much. Disregard so much. Its like when a witness saying something on the record and they say strike that answer. The bells been rung. But theyre not supposed to go back into the deliberation room. Oh, remember when that witness said something, thats not fair game. But no ones back there with them so no one really knows whats going on. Let me read because merchan is ruling on this now. He says as a threshold matter, mr. Blanche, i agree, there were things that should have been left unsaid. I think the witness was a little difficult to control, but and heres the key line. I dont believe were at the point where a mistrial is warranted. And then theres a motion to strike some of the testimony. He says that motion is in fact granted. He says i was surprised there werent more objections and there was some laughter in the Overflow Room in this. We just discussed that. You said this was part of the Defense Strategy all along. Let them have a little bit of leeway here so you could raise this mistrial objection. Essentially after the break. Right . So where does, where does testimony go from here . What do you expect the judge to do . Will he create more limitations around Stormy Daniels testimony moving forward . What do you think . Im not exactly sure what the instruction is going to be. It may be telling the jury to disregard certain aspects of the testimony. That threat part, i think they would want to have the jury told. You shouldnt be taking that as some notion that mr. Trump, something along those lines. Of course, the double edge of that is when you ask for instruction, it brings more attention to what the testimony was. Thats always the strategy question you have to decide on is do i really want to flag this more. And the judge is suggesting that the defense needs to take some responsibility. He says, quote, when you say the bell has been rung, the defense has to take some responsibility for that and he says the remedy is on crossexamination. You both have experience. What does the defense do on cross . We know what the defense is going to do in part. Part of the crossexamination is political. They are going to go after daniels as a liar, extortionist. They already did for her lawyer earlier. And they are going to do the same thing to Stormy Daniels because theyre trying to establish shes a liar. The question is does any of that get to the bottom line for what these charges are. I think theyre going to have a difficult time navigating her because shes going to be just as difficult a witness in answering their questions on crossexamination as she is answering hoffengers questions on direct. Theyre going to try to cabin her in as a liar and i think shes going to talk and give her side of the story and try to get that rapport with the jury and work on that. Well see where they go with it but i think thats what theyre going to be trying to do. I think even before today and what we read inside the document, if you saw any interviews ever with daniels or you saw the documentary thats on peacock right now, she is a feisty person and she talks about her life in a very forceful way. So assuming shes going to do the same on cross as she did on direct, shan, does it benefit one side or the other that she has that personality and that force of personality . Really benefits the prosecution. For the defense, shes a very treacherous witness to cross examine. If they go at her too hard the way their client probably wants to go at her and attack her, youre a liar, thats not going to play well with the jury. Even though they chose to have a female do the crossexamination. Stormy daniels documentary, other things, she comes across as feisty, but shes also sympathetic. They have to be very careful not to look look theyre assuming the personality of their client. The smartest thing to do on crossexamination for her is keep it very narrow. Just point out that she doesnt have any knowledge about the bookkeeping. She cant testify trump directed this whole scheme and then sit down. That would be the smartest thing. And theres been some more back and forth between the judge and trumps lawyers. Saying you know, something about the lack of objections. And hes firmly coming back at them saying if youre going to Say Something like that, be accurate. Well just have to agree to disagree on this. I think i signal to you and to the prosecution that we are going into way too much detail. He did and we talked about how he at one point did come across angry during some of that Prosecution Questioning and how daniels was answering those questions related to the fine details of the sexual encounter. He says having said that, i dont believe weve reached the point where a mistrial is in order. I believe you have the remedy of crossexamination. He goes on to say the more times a story has been changed, because thats Something Else theyve been arguing, the more fire for crossexamination that you have. Do you ag