The star witness had assessed money next week. Plus, a new report from e d the war in gaza as israel prepares to invade rafah. And trump famously does not like spending money. But what happens when his Campaign Starts cutting corners . Why republicans are sounding the alarm as the 11th hour gets underway on this friday night. Good evening, im katie fang in for stephanie ruhle. We are now 179 days from the election and 15 days into the trump hush money trial. With Stormy Daniels done testifying, day 15 was mostly about records. But things will get heated again next week. Today prosecutors revealing that their star witness, Michael Cohen, will take The Stand On Monday and faceoff against his former boss. My colleague, laura jarrett, has more. Reporter Tonight Nbc News learning from multiple sources prosecutors will call their star witness, Michael Cohen, on monday. He called himself Donald Trumps fixer. Now a vocal critic. Cohen unleashing on his old boss in his book and on social media, spotted online this week wearing a tshirt depicting mr. Trump behind bars. The judge today Directing Prosecutors to inform cohen that the judge is asking him to refrain from making any statements about the case or mr. Trump. But not placing a gag order on . Mr. Trump remains barring him from attacking witnesses and the jury. Its not a case, there is no crime. There is no crime, and they failed to show a crime. Reporter cohen, a critical witness for the prosecution as the jury has now read his text messages, heard his voice, and seen evidence that he paid Stormy Daniels 130,000 just days before the 2016 election so she couldnt derail the campaign. The defense says her story of sex with mr. Trump was false, a shakedown for money brokered by cohen, making his testimony and credibility on the stand essential. Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges of illegally disguising his Reimbursement Checks to cohen, his former attorney, as quote Legal Expenses to cover his tracks. The faceoff between the presumptive gop nominee and cohen likely to be one of the most dramatic of the trial. Cohen comes with baggage, including previous convictions for campaignfinance violations and lying under oath. Meanwhile, today, the jury hearing more from former trump aid madeleine wester house, who sit outside the office and confirm mr. Trump met with cohen at the white house in 2017, where prosecutors say that his eyes devised the scheme. But signed checks without reviewing them first, contrary to what mr. Trump said in his book and other witnesses said at trial. With that, lets bring in our leadoff panel. Catherine christian, District Attorney at the manhattan d. A. Office. Nbc legal analyst and defense attorney danny. And hayes brown, editor and writer for msnbc. Com. Thanks all of you for getting us started this hour. Im going to start with you, catherine. Lets talk about the fact that today did not include necessarily Marquee Names or blockbuster territory, but you and i both know as former prosecutors and Trial Lawyers is the details that matter. And we got that through records. We had custodians of records that were coming from at t and verizon, and there was time that was taken in front of the jury to get these records entered into evidence. Do you think the jury is going to be able to appreciate the nuances of having these records in once they go into the jury room and they are able to see the evidence . Yeah, they will understand monday, if its true, when Michael Cohen testifies and testifies about phone calls that he made, phone calls that he received, text messages. So they will understand why that boring stuff was really, really important. And it is. The most important part of this case are the records. The 11 checks, the invoices, the ledger entries. Because those are the 34 counts of defying Business Records that donald trump is charged with. As you said, the details are important. Its very interesting, but thats not what this case is about. To kathryns point, there was, what i thought, the highlight of the day. And let me eke out a little bit, the summary entered into evidence. That summary, i thought, for those who have been critical about the detour, perhaps, the was taken with Stormy Daniels yesterday, the summary allowed to be entered into evidence that the jury will have in its possession linked to be 34 individual Felony Counts to the specific invoices, General Ledger entries, and checks that were signed by donald trump, issued by the Trump Organization in terms of, excuse me, the Donald Trump Revocable trust account and the Donald Trump Personal account. Do you think that the distilling of the information made sense for the prosecution to do at this time, coming on the heels of something as big as Stormy Danielss testimony . Absolutely. I think it was important for the overarching narrative, to establish what and why these payments exist in the first place, and use this evidence to lay out the groundwork of here is the connection, here are the connection points between the scandalous testimony you just heard and all of this boring but necessary stuff to show what exactly his crime was. You showed that clip at the beginning of the hour, of trump claiming there was no crime. This is the crime. Him falsifying his Business Documents to cover up these payments, and i feel like the fact that it was necessary for him to cover his tracks is something that the jury understands. They understand the idea of having to hide the evidence of a crime. This is the prosecution laying out here is how all of this fits together. I think its really important that they did this at this stage, before Michael Cohen testifies to really wrap it all up. Danny, i need you to put your Criminal Defense Attorney had on. I know its not difficult, because that is likely what you do. I want to put you in this particular spot in terms of the question. Last night a former federal prosecutor for politico, he and i got into a backandforth about his estimation that he doesnt think the prosecution has even kind of crossed the finish line yet when it comes to being able to approve the felonies in this case. He said this is all great and stellar, but the fact that trump was trying to hide all of this in order to make sure it didnt damage his campaign is not what this case is about. Do you agree that the prosecution hasnt actually met the elements of the felonies that have been charged . I think, and i think kathryn and i are in agreement on this one. When it comes to the underlying misdemeanor, the notion that there were records that were falsified, have they shown the transaction . Have they shown the records . And have they shown Donald Trumps knowledge and awareness . That last element, they dont have it quite yet. They certainly have circumstantial evidence. Michael cohen will give the direct evidence of that, presumably. He will come in and say donald trump ordered me to do this or some version of that. But the part that aggravates it to a felony, you could say that innocence the government has not even toles what crime they are using as that Predicate Crime to bump it up to a felony. It might be election law, it might be tax violations. But either way, the argument that trump is trying to make through crossexamination is that there were other reasons why he concealed this alleged crime. And if the jury believes that, or if the jury is just confused. Because taking a step back, this is not like a robbery case. Something the jurors can wrap their minds around. This is not only a confusing legal theory, it is a novel legal theory. It arguably has not ever been applied before. Certainly falsification of Business Records, but this application to bump it up to a felony, and anytime youre in novelty land, that might be a hard sell to a jury. Catherine, i want to stay on this, because i think the management of expectations is always important. Especially the management of Client Expectations is key. I also think we have a responsibility when we do the shows and talk about legal issues to make sure people understand the real machinations of what happens in a courtroom. There were motions to dismiss that were filed by donald trump. They were denied. But at that stage of the motion to dismiss, the Legal Standard was easier for the prosecution. Now, with the prosecution rests its case, which we anticipate, according to the prosecution, could be at the end of next week. I think the defense is going to move for a judgment of acquittal. The idea that the prosecution has not proven a case of each of the elements of the crime. Talk about why that is going to be a different legal analysis that judge merchan is going to have to do once the motion is filed for acquittal . Well, grand jury, when the judge reviews in new york and im sure other states, but in new york the grand jury is sufficient if the people have shown that there was reasonable cause that a felony was committed. Period. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial standard is very different. I cannot remember the last time, at least in manhattan, where a judge granted the defendants motion. But it is a very different standard, and i do agree that some of our lawyers, new york lawyers saying now, which crime they are saying that donald trump intended to commit or conceal, they have not explicitly presented that evidence to the jury yet. And theres only two more witnesses. So, hayes, one of the witnesses we are not going to be hearing from is alan weisel berg. The guy is doing time at rikers for perjury for the second time. But the issue the pop up today outside the presence of the jury was whether or not his Severance Agreement was going to be admissible. His Severance Agreement says he gets paid out three different payments but he is not allowed to disparage the Trump Organization, its directors, et cetera. More specifically, He Cannot Disparage donald trump. There was a backandforth with the prosecution about whether or not it would even make sense to subpoena him from rikers to be able to come over and testify, considering the existence of the Severance Agreement. Your thoughts about the fact that a critical part of the conspiracy, according to the prosecution, the fact that he is not testifying, do you think the introduction of this Severance Agreement that actually helped close that loop for the prosecution . I think so. I think what they are intending to show us that the reason he cant be here is that we really cant trust what he has to say. And the idea that he is, i believe the daily beast framed it as him being another hush money payment recipient, that he is basically getting this payout in exchange for saying silent about what he knows about the crimes under discussion. I think the fact that neither the prosecution nor defense has subpoenaed him is definitely interesting. The fact that merchan even floated the idea of it and neither side really seems to have put that in the motion at all. I think that the defense is right that there are a lot of reasons why she cant be there, including yes, he is serving in rikers. He is also serving in rikers because he pled guilty to perjury. So considering the fact that Michael Cullen has also credibility issues for lying under oath to congress, i can see why the prosecution would headed hesitate to put some notes on the stand who might have more credibility issues. And instead lean on this Severance Document instead. But you know, danny, you and i have had to deal with putting defendants on. And lets look at that lens. I think Michael Cullen is tantamount to a flip code defendant. He is cooperating with the prosecution. He is going to be subpoenaed to show up. The point is he knows what happened in that room. In those rooms. He was a part of the conspiracy. He is saying this is what donald trump agreed to do with david pecker and me. How do you, if you are Michael Cohens lawyer, how do you counsel him going into his testimony on monday knowing that the judge has actually said, as well, to the prosecution, tell mr. Cohen and the other witnesses to please not talk about this case outside in public. This is the same advice i would give Stormy Daniels. Just answer the question that is asked. On the outside of the courtroom a lot of people thought Stormy Daniels never answer your question yes or no, but instead fighting back on every single leading question. While that played well i think too many outside of the courtroom, when a witness does that, when a witness is combative with every single question on cross, they dont help anyone. They dont help themselves, they dont help decide theyre trying to help, and if anything they may end up helping the side they are trying to fight. And i think to some degree that could have happened with Stormy Daniels. Jurors dont always like someone who fights back on every question. If Stormy Daniels did that, i expect Michael Cohen is going to do it a lot more. I think his attorneys are probably going to tell him i know you think this is your time in the sun, just listen to the question, answer the question asked. Yes or no, it is what it is. You have credibility problems. The prosecution presumably has built up the rest of the case. It is not all on your back. Just go in there and answer the questions asked. You know, catherine, Stormy Daniels, to dannys point, tweeted last night after she testified, quote, real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh, wait, nevermind. Putting aside whether or not you support the fact that Stormy Daniels tweeted that out, we do have to fastforward this analysis a little bit. Because the prosecution rests its case in chief next week, and all eyes turned to the defense. We know, constitutionally, that the defendant has no optimization to do anything. It is the burden of proof. But you and i know it is hard to ignore all the allegations that have been made that are so personal in nature, that it does almost look to donald trump to have to take the stand to explain away a lot of the things he has been accused of. Its just not going to happen. I cant imagine it would. And if it were to happen, then he will be convicted. Defendants often are their worst enemies. Sometimes you listen to the peoples case and they rest, and you are like well, they didnt really prove this so we are not going to do a thing or say a thing and hope the jury does the right thing. So hes going to speak publicly. He cannot trash witnesses or jurors, but what he does outside the courtroom, thats his way of testifying. But danny, and the last question is going to you, danny. Because you, again, actively practicing criminal defense. You have clients that probably are chomping at the bit to take the stand. The problem you have is this. Donald trump from day one has publicly, in the court of public opinion, told the world he is going to testify. It is not i will think about it. Its not if its on a thursday maybe i will. It is im going to testify, i have nothing to hide, i am going to tell the truth. We have also seen that trumps lawyers have not actually done a fantastic job of saying no to him, because thereve been representations made during the course of even this trial that make you scratch your head as a lawyer. Does donald trump take the stand, danny . Let me take out my list of promises donald trump has made that no one even takes seriously anymore. No one will remember he said i was going to testify. I dont know why we are still Charlie Brown kicking this football. Of course hes going to stand outside and say hey, im going to testify. Then when he doesnt, no one will do anything. In the last two weeks ive taken the underdog that that maybe he will, because im the only one saying it. And i will be a legend if he does. And if he doesnt, everyone will forget i said it, trust me. I really dont believe he will end up testifying. Psychologically, you will get all kinds of whitecollar criminal defendants in cases like this and say i am taking the stand, i am telling the story. And as the case goes on the kind of get a Reality Check and they realize that if they get up there they are going to be subjected to the crucible of crossexamination. The rules are slanted against the witness in favor of the attorney, and really nothing good can come of it. But the only reason i still hold out for that underdog is that he is an absolute constitutional right to do it. And who knows what lurks in the mind of donald trump . Maybe he will have rick scott take the stand for him and testify as his surrogate. My thanks to you guys for getting us started this evening. I appreciate you guys always. When we come back, with the legal bills adding up for donald trump, and his team is looking for ways to trim the fat. Inside a leaner campaign. And later, forget ntg and mike johnson, we are going to talk about the biggest feud of the week. Maybe someone can explain it to me. The 11th hour just getting underway on this friday night. Elevat