Transcripts For MSNBCW Chris 20240703 : vimarsana.com

MSNBCW Chris July 3, 2024

It is good to be back with you for this second hour of Chris Jansing reports. Todays testimony in Donald Trumps Hush Money Trial turned to some of the most Critical Evidence yet, the invoices, vouchers and checks at the heart of the criminal case against the former president. While it may not have had the same shock value as, for example, Stormy Daniels testimony, it is setting up the jury for whats expected on monday, testimony from the most highly anticipated witness in this case. Donald trumps former fixer, Michael Cohen, the man who says he paid off the adult film star at trumps direction. The prosecution revealing today that they expect to call one other witness besides cohen. Its entirely possible that they rest by the end of next week. I want to bring in nbcs Yasmin Vossoughian whos reporting from outside the courthouse in lower manhattan, also with us, former u. S. Attorney and msnbc legal analyst, Chuck Rosenberg. In studio, jessica roth, a former federal prosecutor for the southern Doctor District of new york, and jill, she has known judge merchan for 15 years. Chuck, i think today was a good reminder for all of us not just that everything you put down in a text or an email lives forever, but that for all the salacious details in this trial, it is going to come down to what were calling dry details, those signed checks, how mail got delivered to donald trump, the phone records. How does this set the stage for Michael Cohen . Thats right, chris. Look, mr. Trump is not charged with having sex with Stormy Daniels. Its largely irrelevant. It provides some of the context, but thats not the crime. The crime is the falsification of books and records. So what a prosecutor would have to show is that the books and records were false, that they were intentionally false, and in this case, that mr. Trump directed that. You know, think of it this way, chris. In a bank robbery, the guy standing in the lobby of the bank with a gun and a mask and a bag of cash is the bank robber. Its not that hard, but if someone is charged with Falsifying Books and records. Lets say someone is charged with filing a false tax return, the defendant would argue theres a whole bunch of people between him and the false return, the bookkeeper didit, the accountant did it, the lawyer did, if my return is false, its because all of these other people failed me, they were freelancing, and so you need to directly connect mr. Trump to the false records if youre going to prove your case to the jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To your point, chris, all of the other salacious details are, you know, well, salacious, but they dont prove the underlying crime. Thats why Michael Cohen is critical. There are things obviously, though, judge, that go to the heart of what did donald trump know, and when did he know it, and putting all of that into context. So it was interesting told that the judge denied a request by the prosecution to show a clip of donald trump on larry king back in 1999. He was bragging about his knowledge of Campaign Finance law. This is what they wanted to play. How about Campaign Finance reform . I think nobody knows more about Campaign Finance than i do because im the biggest contributor. Why would the judge say no. You smiled when you heard him say that. You look at the picture of donald trump, you see its a long time ago. So the relevance is therefore going to be, you know, attenuated at best, and hes bragging, thats what he does, quite well, and it doesnt really mean anything. So judges, as a rule, with every decision thats before them, is they balance it. What is the probative value of the evidence. Heres theres a prejudicial effect because the prosecutor wouldnt be asking for it if it wasnt prejudicial. It helps their case. But the probative value is so minimal. Do you think that a jury would look at that and say donald trump knew what was going on was wrong. He said it himself. Maybe. I mean, again, its so remote, and it gives the defense the argument to make the argument im making here, but at the end of the day, it is remote, it probably wouldnt have won the day. Jill, youre smiling and laughing a little bit, or chuckling at least under your breath. What do you make of that, and all of these kinds of decisions that a judge has to make but maybe youll say you cant blame either a prosecution or a defense for trying . Well, i think the possible relevance of that clip was to show that trump was familiar with Campaign Finance law, which goes to sort of was there a crime in making in payment to Michael Cohen, which was alleged to be an Unlawful Campaign contribution, and did he know it would be unlawful. It had minimal probative value. It was so long ago, and he could have been bluffing. If its offered on the heels of the Stormy Daniels testimony yesterday, where so much came in, the salacious details about the sexual encounter that didnt go to the heart of the criminal charges here. I think at that point, the judge is particularly keen to make sure hes not going to be admitting things to have a real risk of unfair prejudice when they dont have that much probative value. The other thing jurors saw were Text Messages in 2016 between dylan howard, the editor of the National Enquirer back then, and Gina Rodriguez, she was Stormy Daniels manager, and they were really interesting. What can you tell us . This was the reason why they recalled georgia longstreet, right . Georgia longstreet, a paralegal in the manhattan d. A. s office, responsible for gathering the social media, much of the Text Message Exchanges as well. It was a way to admit the evidence and have the evidence read in a courtroom. The Text Messages between dylan howard and Gina Rodriguez beginning in april of that year, 2016, leading up to october 26th of 2016. The final Text Messages from dylan howard to Gina Rodriguez saying i have good news, i hear. We have good news, i hear, and im paraphrasing here, and essentially the entire exchange over this sixmonth period, chris, is the back and forth, the negotiations, the leading up to this ultimate 130,000 payoff to Stormy Daniels even in the final weeks leading up to october 26th in these Text Messages. They havent come through on the agreement, on the payout, so theyre going with daily mail, their loss, but then subsequently, obviously as we know now, so many years later, why were here now is the 130,000 did, in fact, come through. It was fascinating to see a glimpse of this negotiation going between howard and Gina Rodriguez and wanting to show the jury the lead up to the ultimate payoff. So, chuck, where are the glaring holes that the prosecution is expecting, hoping, planning for Michael Cohen to fill . Yeah, its not really a glaring hole, chris. Its an obvious need for proof as i had mentioned earlier. The records were false, they were intentionally false, and they were intentionally false because mr. Trump directed them to be. So can cohen connect those three things . Can he say credibly, and credible is a very big part of his testimony, and well see how that goes, that, i told trump what we were doing, trump approved this. Trump told me to handle it this way. Trump directed us to call it a retainer agreement. He direct that had it be done, and, you know, over a period of time with monthly checks. In other words, that trump knew what the scheme was. He understood the goals of it, that he approved of it, and that it all happened on his watch at his direction. Thats the gap that the prosecutors need to fill. They know that. Theyve done some of it inf inf and its every bit as valid as direct evidence. What they need from mr. Cohen is direct evidence. I was there for the conversations with mr. Trump. He understood what we were doing, approved of what we were doing and directed what we did. Were going to talk more about Michael Cohen in this hour, but, jessica, there isnt any indication right now of who the other mystery witness might be. Theyre acknowledging, probably two more witnesses, could be done at the end of next week. Michael cohen and looking at the hole that needs to be filled. Any thoughts about who that might be . I have been wondering about that because me too. Yeah, and i would not want to end on Michael Cohen if i were the prosecution, so i would want some other substantiative witness after him if i could. But im not sure who that would be at this point. I dont know that its going to be a records custodian. It feels like all the records we need are in evidence. Im imagining possibly theres some witness to whom he made a prior consistent statement, if thats true, that would be helpful to rehabilitate Michael Cohen, if hes examined on crossexamination about prior inconsistent statements hes made, and hes made a lot of prior inconsistent statements, where trump had nothing to do with this. Maybe if theyre closer to the events in question, yeah, donald trump is in on this, maybe thats somebody who could be corroborative of this. Im not sure who else that would be. Chuck, you want to take a stab at it . Look, like jessica, i dont know, but i have one other possibility. I think jessicas absolutely right. The government doesnt want to end with Michael Cohen because thats messy. Even if it goes well, its messy. So maybe, possibly, the last witness is a summary witness, somebody who has a time line or summary charts and who can help pull all of this together. I mean, ive used that as a prosecutor, when you have a lot of paper and a lot of witnesses, and dates and phone calls, and Text Messages that you can pull it all together through a summary witness, but again, chris, just a guess. Yasmin, thank you, chuck, jessica and jill stand by. In 90 seconds were going to dill into Michael Cohens big moment when the former fixer takes the stand. Can he cement the case or will his Credibility Issues stand in the way . Stand in the way . For bold. What straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space . Boring does. Boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. Because its smart, dependable, and steady. All words you want from your bank. For nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled. Which is pretty unboring if you think about it. tony hawk skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. I take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. Why qunol . It has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. Qunol. The brand i trust. So this is pickleball . Pickle ah, these guys are intense. With e trade from Morgan Stanley, were ready for whatever gets served up. Dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. Id rather work on saving for retirement. Or college, since you like to get schooled. Thats a pretty good burn, right . vo sail through the heart of historic cities and unforgettable scenery with viking. Unpack once and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life and cultural treasures. Because when you experience europe on a viking longship, youll spend less time getting there and more time being there. Viking. Exploring the world in comfort. Trial, the testimony of trumps former fixer, Michael Cohen, who sources tell nbc is expected to take the stand on monday. Cohens name has already been invoked more than 1,500 times at this trial as both sides attempt to shape his character for the jury before he even steps into the courtroom. And just before ending court for the day, judge merchan had a warning for the prosecution, i would direct the people to communicate to mr. Cohen that the judge is asking him to refrain from communicating about this case. Back with us, Chuck Rosenberg, jessica roth, and jill conviser. 1,500 mentions of cohen so far, and a lot of it not good. Hope hicks said he used to like to call him mr. Fix it, but because he first broke it. Stormy daniels former lawyer referred to him as a jerk. Take us behind the scenes, give us a sense of how prosecutors may be doing last minute preps with Michael Cohen right now . Its really interesting to think about what theyre going to do with him on direct examination. Theres so much that has been said about him through other witnesses as you were mentioning, much of that i would be looking to do on direct, pulling the sting of the things youre going to anticipate on a crossexamination, having the witness own and state up front things that they have done in the past that make them less credible as a witness, perhaps, things about their criminal record, lies they have told in the past. Those are the kinds of things that the jury has a sense of through the other witnesses. What i think theyre going to be working on with Michael Cohen is making sure he doesnt appear to be shying away from any of these unsavory aspects of his past. There are things the jury has not heard about with respect to him. Theyre going to be preparing him to give a direct examination where he is straightforward about all the things he has done in the past, that a jury might find less than fully credible and tell his story that is at the heart of this case, about his dealings with the former president and about Stormy Daniels and the payment in a straightforward way. If i were them, i would be trying to get him to say it without the sinkers that he loves to include on social media, to just get the facts out. Theres also the question of credibility. How does a Prosecutor Set him up for the jury. Hes a convicted liar who turned on trump, and this is given in evidence, turned on him when he didnt get a job in the administration, and who has made money off of his relationship with trump. So how do you even start if youre the prosecutor . Hes not a good human being, chris, but thats not unusual. As prosecutors we deal with lots of people who are not good human beings. Some of them end up testifying for the government in criminal cases. By the way, its happening today all over the country in state and Federal Courts everywhere. And jessica alluded to it. What prosecutors have to do is draw the sting. On direct examination, when prosecutors are asking questions, they have to go through all the sordid details of mr. Cohens life, his conviction, his bias, his lies, because you dont want as a prosecutor for the jury to hear that for the first time from the defense team on crossexamination. Look, whether or not it succeeds is going to turn in part on the prosecutors but also in part on mr. Cohen. And so even though the jury went home today at 12, the prosecutors did not. I promise you. They went back to their offices, had a quick lunch, if they were lucky, and got to work as they will be doing all weekend, likely rehearsing, prepping with mr. Cohen, begging him, as the judge asked to stop making comments outside of court, and getting him ready. But jessicas exactly right. You as the prosecutor induce all of the weaknesses, all of the biases, all of the inconsistencies in your questioning, drawing the sting for the witness and hopefully showing the jury that flawed and all, they still ought to believe the heart of mr. Cohens testimony that this plot was directed by mr. Trump. So they both brought this up, judge. This is something who weve all seen on television, including on this network, he is colorful, he is blunt, he often goes far beyond answering the question he is asked. So whats judge merchans role in all of this, and especially given what we saw with Stormy Daniels and you saw that he seemed to be frustrated, frankly, to some extent with the defense that they didnt object more . Well, colorful is one word. Certainly. I think youre going to see the judge take a more active role, and i say that for a couple of reasons. One is generally as a judge, you let the lawyers try their case. They can make Strategic Decisions about when to object and when not to object. Even if a layperson may think theyre getting hurt, well, they might have their reasons and youre going to give them some leeway. Here, well, with the rapid fire Mistrial Motions that came thereafter, would leave me to wonder if im sitting there on the bench, that maybe im getting played a little bit. And so im going to take a more active role. I am going to stop anything that is remotely prejudicial, whether the defense wants that or not. If they want to make an argument, judge, this is important to me, then ill consider it. Otherwise, i think you will see merchan pull back the reins a little bit. Is there a way with the question that the prosecution can rein him in. I assume you dont want to interrupt your own witness. Its one thing to go too far and away that might help your case, but if he starts to go in a another way, you might think hurts your case. What do you do . I think what they want to do are prepare him with questions that are very directed. Its open ended questions. You cant lead your witness on direct examination, but you can ask precise questions, what did he say at that moment. Sort of what happened next with respect to x, right, and not give him free reign to talk about the entirety of the da

© 2025 Vimarsana