You have to your point, to both of your points. You have the physical evidence meaning the documentation, the text messages, the signed checks. You have all of the corroborating witnesses, david pecker, and now you have Michael Cohen. Is this proof beyond a reasonable doubt . Well figure that out eventually, but its all pointing in the right direction. What more do they need from Michael Cohen . Theyre going to need that direct evidence that he acted in furtherance of donald trump i think theyre going to be able to do that well with sounds like the prosecution is really doing a great job laying out the calculated narrative through Michael Cohen but then also corroborating it in a meticulous manner with the text messages. There was an objection but it was overruled. This conversation that cohen was testified to is supported by the documentary evidence. When they get to Stormy Daniels theyre going to be able to show the checks, the ledgers, all of that stuff. I think theyre doing a really good job to set that up. I wonder if in this testimony were seeing an abundance of preparation, you heard what eric trump tweeted, which is that this is very well prepared or whatever is that a negative necessarily, charles, if it seems a little too rote, if it seems a little too prepared . Im talking obviously about the reaction of a jury in general. It can be if it seems rehearsed to the point of being inauthentic. Thats the one thing that we cant necessarily judge by the google doc is that we dont know whether its theres a difference between rehearsed and sort of gotten yourself together and collected and focused versus forced or disingenuous. I think thats really what it boils down to. I mean, if Michael Cohen comes across as his regular sort of Scattered Brained Self but is also sticking to the script, if you will, and i dont mean that i mean that purely figuratively. Thats fine. If he comes across looking like a completely different person than anyone has ever seen him before, that, i think, would draw some curiosity from jurors who may be vaguely familiar with having seen him before. So its really about showing up in a way where youre still yourself, but youre prepared, and i think that thats the difference. Is it prepared or is it rehearsed . Without seeing it we cant know. Of course the trump camp would love to argue this is rehearsed. This is orchestrated, this is theatric, but if youre the prosecution, all you just want to do is to show that hes prepared. And it seems like hes extremely prepared in terms of how hes sticking to narrowly answering the questions asked, not going All Over The Place because thats what the prosecution absolutely needs, not only from keeping the door closed on excess stuff in terms of Cross Examination, but also weve been talking a lot about the time so that if im the prosecutor on this case, im thinking to myself, look, weve got a lot of stuff to cover. We cannot have you going All Over The Place. You need to get these answers as tight and brief as possible so we can get through as much as we can without losing this jury. And theyre moving on it looks like. I want to go back to Vaughn Hillyard to get an update. Whats happening right now, vaughn . Reporter as part of the acknowledgment for Michael Cohen, the terms of the agreement with Karen Mcdougal were being discussed. He was informed that Karen Mcdougal would be given the opportunity to pen 24 articles for the American Media incorporated publications as well as appear on two magazine covers and that Michael Cohen was notified through david pecker and dylan howard that that was a part of the arrangement, to which he was elated knowing that abc news was not going to be the one to publish this story. That essentially the plan they had hatched a year prior to catch these types of stories had been a success and that at that point he said that he, in fact, did go back to mr. Trump to inform him about Karen Mcdougals story, the fact that it would not ever get out there, to which Michael Cohen testified in front of this jury that his reaction was, quote, fantastic. Great job. They are now moving on to the third catch and kill story. Of course that is Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen is beginning to describe that process to ultimately pay her 130,000 and ultimately ensure that story didnt get published. I want to welcome defense attorney misty maris. There have been only been a couple of objections. One has been overruled, one of them was sustained. Were in the kind of quiet part of this. Anything that the defense can use so far . The defense is really going to focus on exactly what we were speaking about, which is wheres the paper trail, right . We were there were encrypted messages. We know that some of these conversations were happening one on one, and these are the critical moments that are going to fill in the gaps that the prosecution has presented. The defense is going to be pinpointing the credibility of Michael Cohen, which is going to serve as a lot of what the fodder for Cross Examination. And im just trying to catch up here on the document as to whats going on right now. It looks like theyre continuing with exhibits between Keith Davidson and Michael Cohen. Theyre focusing in on these communications regarding these payments. Ultimately soon to involve Stormy Daniels. There is an email that says, michael, please call me at your convenience, thanks, Keith Davidson. When you received this email you called Keith Davidson . Cohen, i did, i said great job, the boss is very happy and it is now resolved because of the deal they had reached for Karen Mcdougals story to be bought and essentially buried by the National Enquirer, and hoffinger said whats your understanding of why he reached out to you after this deal was concluded . Objection. Sustained. Hoffinger, after ami finalized the deal and paid the money for life rights did you speak to pecker about mr. Trump reimbursing . Cohen, he wanted the 150,000 back because it was too much money for him to hide from the ceo of the Parent Company and he also had just laid out the 30,000 for the doorman who we discussed, so he was putting pressure on me to speak to trump and to get the money back. Hoffinger, was he upset about it . Cohen, very. So where do you think this testimony is taking us here, misty . This is also important because this is really going to serve as the basis for what the prosecution needs to prove. Remember, these ndas on their face, they are not illegal. So we have to get into what the motivation, the reasoning, the intent was behind catching and killing these stories. That coupled with keeping trump in the loop and thats the piece you see them homing in on right now. You have these communications with Keith Davidson, did you speak to trump . What did he say about it. Thats why the conversations make Michael Cohen such a critical witness to close the loop on so many of the other issues that the prosecutors have already set the table with with other witnesses. But cohen, hes really the one that can talk about the structure of these transactions and the why. Why were they characterized that way . Why were they structured that way . We know a lot of notes are being taken by the defense, and maybe thats not a surprise. But in a way, im looking at what we have so far, and im thinking we know this story. This story has been told by Michael Cohen himself time and time and time again. Hes done countless television interviews. He has a podcast. He wrote two books about it. Its all in black and white. What are they taking note of, first of all, that they didnt already know . And have you heard anything at all that says, oh, maybe this is going to go in some area that we hadnt expected before. I havent heard anything that would surprise me as far as whats going to come out, and to your point, its so true. The defense knows what in general what hes going to say. The defense has so much out there in the ether to prepare for their Cross Examination. The reason theyre taking notes and i would say my pen would probably be on fire for i were at the defense table myself, the reason is they want to take exactly what hes saying and then attack it with whatever theyre going to use on Cross Examination, specific to the testimony that the jury is hearing. You heard mr. Cohen say xyz. You testified to this, what about and present whatever evidence, whether it be a credibility issue, a document, other witness testimony, no matter what it is, they want to not just generalize, they want to attack the specifics of what comes out in his direction. Thats a really important point. When you are thinking about cross examining a witness, when someone tells a lie, they can generally keep the tenor of the overall lie together, the theme of it. Where they get in trouble with the details, and the details are what theyre going to focus on when you talk about the small inconsistencies of Michael Cohens story. Yes, generally speaking i can tell consistent ri a lie about having fixed something for trump and what i did, and i can write a book about it and i can keep that together on the stand, but to mistys point, the jury is hearing very specific testimony. And regardless of whats been said previously this is what counts . Does an inconsistency have to be an inconsistency, and if he says, yes, i lied, and this is why, i think sometimes there is an inconsistency. A jury can understand he didnt say it exactly the same way, big deal, as opposed to this is a problem. Thats dependent on how persuasive the arguments are on either side. If im Donald Trumps attorneys im going to argue this a big deal. This is an inconsistency that actually matters and you should Pay Attention to. Not just that but this other inconsistency over hear and this one over here and over there. If im the prosecution, im going to say does this change anything about what youve really heard . The fact that someone said misty is wearing a purple suit and the colors aber sheen. Does that make a difference . Were getting to something thats really good. Cohen is being questioned by Susan Hoffinger about this issue of trump needing to pay back david pecker because of the 150,000 deal that david pecker is now saying that was too much. I want to be personally reimbursed for that related to Karen Mcdougals story, so cohens talking about this with david pecker and he says david expressed to me that his relationship with trump goes back many, many years, and theres a file drawer, a locked drawer as he described it where files that relate to mr. Trump existed, and at that point in time david was being considered for the position of ceo at Time Incorporated and one of the concerns that i had that i expressed to mr. Trump, cohen says, was that if he goes theres a series of papers there that relate to you. Hoffinger, was mr. Trump concerned about that . Cohen, yes. Hoffinger, direct attention to september of 2016, did you record a convo with trump regarding purchasing Karen Mcdougal life rights. This is the only one i taped. Why did you tape this one . So i could show it to david pecker. That way he could hear the conversation that he was going to be paying him back and i also wanted him to remain loyal to donald trump. This is key. This is critical. This shows that paper trail, and it also shows if you think about it, the pattern that cohen actually experienced when he wasnt getting paid back or he didnt receive the compensation necessary to pay Stormy Daniels. So i think what the prosecution is kind of doing is laying out this mirror to show this pattern because the pattern also links back to trump as well. Is there an issue, though, if cohens right now saying this was the one conversation i recorded. I think as a juror was mr. Trump aware, no, maam. Mr. Trump wasnt aware. Im left to question, why was this the only one he recorded . Like how does the prosecution explain that, charles, and if youre the defense youve worn both hats, are you going to pounce on that . Well, dont assume this is the only one he recorded. He just said it was. Yeah, im sorry, youre right. He just a said he said this is the only one i taped. And she said why did you tape this one. He says so i could show it to david pecker and that way he would hear the conversation that he was going to be palg him back. Trump opens his eyes slightly to look up at the monitor where theyre showing the recording and the transcript. If youre the prosecution in this case you have to kind of sort of give the jury and i used to say this all the time. The defense to the extent that they can would love for you to speculate as much as they can. They want you to sort of think in these other areas that are not on the record. Why . Because thats the area that reasonable doubt exists. If im the prosecution, i used to use this line all the time, lets not focus on what ifs. Lets focus on what is. Lets focus on what we actually know. Lets not necessarily ask questions about why there arent additional recordings. Lets deal with the recording we have and the contents thereof. Let me ask you about this recording. One inference could be this sleazy little guy who thought he was being nice to donald trump in fact is going behind his back, and when he walks in they describe it here, he walked in and he had the cell phone in his hand. He says he used a voice memo app and hit record. This is who this guy is. As opposed to this is a guy who is trying to keep the National Enquirer at bay, keep them loyal to donald trump, get this thing fixed by the fixer. Is there a reasonable inference either way . I think you could absolutely go either way and maybe more context as we continue in the direct examination. You only need one juror. Exactly. I also think for the prosecutors what i might focus on is, well, remember, at some point Michael Cohen is going to have to testify about why they characterized these documents in this way, and it was to cover up another crime. Hes going to have to admit hes lawyer that he knew that something they were doing was likely to be illegal or they thought it was at the time, whether it was or wasnt, right . Its all about that intent. On that front, perhaps you use it as a prosecutor and say, yeah, he recorded this one, but as they went on, they didnt want anything on recording. They didnt want any paper trail because they believed they were engaging in illegal conduct or could be engaging in illegal contact, which, again, feeds into 17152, the conspiracy statute that is the operative crime for the document. So i think its really probably threading the needle here getting us to that point where cohen is going to be able to testify on that front, the why. Right now the jury is apparently hearing this Audio Recording that Michael Cohen just said i taped it, lets go to our Yasmin Vossoughian outside the courthouse. Remind us whats on this tape, yasmin. Reporter yeah, so many of us have heard this tape at one point or another over the last year or so. Let me read you what i have here when it comes to the back and forth between cohen and trump on this Audio Recording so you can understand what the jury is hearing right now inside that courtroom. So Michael Cohen says ive spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set up the whole thing, and trump says so what do we got to pay for . 150 . And cohen says correct. So im all over that. And i spoke to allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be trump cuts him off. Wait a second, what financing . Cohen says, well, ill have to pay him something. Trump says something thats unintelligible, trump says pay with cash. Cohen says, no, no, no, i got it. That is part of the Audio Recording which the jury is hearing right now when it comes to this exchange between donald trump and Michael Cohen, integral obviously to this case, this time of Audio Recording. Lets just remember for a moment why it is so many of the witnesses that are less salacious than, for instance, the witness were hearing from now, Michael Cohen and or Stormy Daniels as well, the verizon, the at t employee as well. The paralegals of themanhattan d. A. s office, how they came upon these recordings and submitted it for evidence. Important for the jury to understand that context as theyre listening to this Audio Recording. Yasmin, thank you very much for giving us that update. Please do keep us posted outside the courthouse. Right now our google doc is saying theyre still listening to this Audio Recording. How important is that, though . Thats going to break up too the testimony, right . Kind of brings the jury back. We may not hear from donald trump, except for the mutterings in court that the judge warned his lawyers about, how im