Things changed for me. Breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare ups. Breztri wont replace a Rescue Inhaler for sudden breathing problems. It is not for asthma. Tell your doctor if you have a Heart Condition or high Blood Pressure before taking it. Dont take breztri more than prescribed. Breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. Call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. Ask your doctor about breztri. And right now, the jury is coming back from lunch after having an entire morning of testimony by the start witness and to hear Michael Cohen tell it, he lied, he made threats, he killed negative stories all in service to donald trump. Good afternoon, im chris jansing, alongside my colleagues, Andrea Mitchell and katy tur. The very last thing the jury heard from Michael Cohen before they went to lunch is he was, quote, following directions. So far mr. Trump has been listening to cohen with his eyes shut, but the testimony has shifted to that critical matter of the 130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen described how donald trump was very angry about her shopping the story saying, quote, this is really a disaster. Women will hate me. Guys, they think its cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign. That says it all, doesnt it. Were going to continue to bring you live updates from inside the courtroom over the next two hours. Again, Michael Cohen is back on the stand. I want to bring in nbcs Yasmin Vossoughian outside the courthouse, also with us in studio, two criminal Defense Attorneys, msnbc legal analyst, Danny Cevallos and duncan levin, former senior staffer at the manhattan district attorneys office. Okay. Duncan, what is job one for Michael Cohen and the Prosecution Team as they move forward . They have got to keep him under control. He is an uncontrollable witness. The defense has an uncontrollable client. The prosecution has been dealing with uncontrollable witnesses. They saw it first a little bit with Stormy Daniels, she was veering off course with the questioning. Some would say more than a little, but okay. And the judge had to say to the prosecutor, please just have her answer the questions. Theyre going to have Michael Cohen is so well prepped for this testimony, he is going to be able to stick to the questions, but i think what they are trying to do is deflate the defenses story. Theyre trying to make sure that the bad stuff thats going to come out on the cross comes out first on the defense and the direct testimony. They want to make sure that the jury has already heard a lot about him. Theyre going to basically air out the dirty laundry as part of the direct. Is the worst thing that he has to acknowledge, aside from what he was doing for donald trump in the cover up, is the worst thing that he lied to a federal judge . I think the fact that hes a liar has already come out. Its sort of been part of the trial, and they will overcome that. I think the worst thing that they have to do is show he was not acting just in defense of trump. He was acting in defense of himself, in furtherance of himself. He was doing all of this to further his own career. In fact, theres testimony early in the trial that Michael Cohen, after mr. Trump won and was going to washington was despondent that he wasnt going to washington too. This is all for the election. He has to continue to hammer that home. I think throughout the direct and theyre going to have overcome that. His motive is really important because he was so upset that he didnt get a job in the administration. I think we should be careful about describing this as a fore gone conclusion about what the jury is going to decide. Do you see this as a Slam Dunk Case for the prosecution . I know we havent seen the defenses argument yet. They havent introduced their witnesses. Do you see, perhaps, some issues the prosecution might face in trying to get all of the jurors on the same page for a conviction. I think if we come back to what this case is about, it is a false documents case, and i think theyve proven the falsifying of Business Documents on the face, that the documents were false. And they have proven the intent to defraud the voters, and they have proven the intent to conceal this conspiracy between david pecker, the national enquirer, Michael Cohen, mr. Trump. They have shown the elements of it. The thing they havent shown yet and theyre trying to show it throughout testimony of Michael Cohen is that not only did mr. Trump know about this conspiracy, but he knew about the falsification of the Business Records. That one piece of it is probably the biggest hurdle that they have to show that he knew that these documents were being falsified, that he was aware of it, and that he caused the documents to be falsified. Its not a Slam Dunk Case. Its a very complicated case, and the other piece of it thats missing so far, i assume there are two more witnesses, Michael Cohen is one of them. The other witness, we dont know who it is yet, the one piece of this thats also missing is this fore gone conclusion that paying this money, this hush money is actually a crime, and thats something that should come in. Thats what i wonder about. I wonder if there might be one juror who says okay, i see what youre arguing on the documents, i understand it. But honestly, i dont like this case. I dont think its fair. I feel like donald trump is being targeted here. It doesnt seem like its worthy of this. It feels like its old. Is that potentially what could happen with one juror. Is that what the defense is hoping for . Theyre hoping for. They wont say it. Were talking about the large tent and the gray area of jury nullification. Were not in there deliberating with them, and Defense Attorneys cannot ask for jury nullification. Theres a chance the jury can go back and say, just like you said, even if the elements are there, this doesnt feel right, and i think this is a distinct possibility. The other thing that could happen is the jury is going to struggle with the definitios of things like fraud. The Jury Instructions say you have to have an intent to defraud, that includes an intent to conceal or cover up some other crime. That is broadly defined under new york law, but i can see jurors struggling with that if they feel like this is a ticky tack kind of crime, thats where they might hang their hat and say this intent to defraud really there . Or is it just that its unlawful . Let me stop you if you can. Youre talking about intent, and its in whats happening right now. Lets go inside. What was the first email, and then your response, yes, kd saved to me, were good. Meaning Keith Davidson, it was to delay execution of documents and fundings, and i used the holiday on yom kippur to delay until after the election, and after the election it wouldnt matter. According to who . According to mr. Trump. And then it goes on to say did you have a conversation with donald trump about this using your cell or land lining. He was traveling a lot. Campaigning with his own private plane. Was he still sometimes in the office when he was campaigning. Yes. Did he give you a call . Depends on the rally. Fair to say you spoke to him in person when you were able to see him, if not, you spoke to him by telephone. Cohen, if possible. Introducing a new exhibit in evidence. This is an email from me to gary farro asking him to call me. Who is gary farro. At First Republic bank. Gary farro testified a couple of weeks ago. One of the first people to discuss the payment. And heres the event. Do jurors remember when they go back, and theyre, like, oh, yeah, i remember who farro is. Or looking through their notes and trying to connect the dots themselves. I know its the job of the prosecution in closing but does this stuff tend to stick . This is a manageable number of witnesses first of all. These are people the jurors can remember on their own. We have had a couple dozen at most witnesses total. And theyre going to pass this around. The exhibits are available to them. Sometimes theyll ask for transcripts to be read back to them. Some of this is available to jurors when they deliberate, if they send out a note. Theyll do that. Can we look at this again, and they get to look at whatever it is again if theyre allowed to. So its not that they need to memorize everything perfectly, and in closing, the prosecution is going to tie all of this together for them because evidence comes out in bits and pieces, and so thats the kind of thing that theyre going to come up with in a closing argument. But, you know, as weve just heard, theyre getting into that intent. Its interesting. I know these arent official transcripts. I dont know if you noticed, theyre asking leading questions, and dont ask what is the next question, what did he say, what did you take away from that conversation. Theyre lining up that these conversations happened. But curiously not really getting into the meat of it. And all the back and forth, was he on the phone, was he on the plane, was he at a rally. They seem to be setting up that perhaps they dont have, i dont know, they dont have an actual record of these conversations. This dove tails in with the testimony that we heard from Stormy Daniels lawyer, Keith Davidson who was making the point through his testimony that Michael Cohen lacked the authority to make these payments on his own. He was saying, im trying to get my guy on the phone. Michael cohen was not doing this out of the goodness of his heart, and hope hicks, by the way, hammered that home in her testimony. She said she spoke to trump afterwards and trump said to her, yes, Michael Cohen paid for this out of the goodness of his heart. She knew that to be a lie and didnt want to call mr. Trump a lawyer. She said Michael Cohen is not like that. Out of character. Lets go to Yasmin Vossoughian, standing outside the courtroom. You have been following this every day. All morning and into the afternoon. Give us an update. Reporter so whats interesting, i think, when youre talking about specifically first off Michael Cohen, Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels as well. I think its important to know the testimony from Keith Davidson in which he talks about this delay tactic for Michael Cohen, and he said specifically in his testimony that Michael Cohen was a difficult person, and im paraphrasing here to work with through these negotiations. Hence the reason why they brought in Dillon Howard into the negotiations. We then subsequently learned that one of the reasons why it seemed Michael Cohen was so quote unquote difficult to work with was because he was trying to delay the actual payout until after the election, which is coming to fruition in this testimony here from Michael Cohen. One other thing i think is important to bring up, guys, as were going through this, something i spoke about in the last hour, Allen Weisselberg, the elephant in the room as to why hes not testifying. Its important to keep in mind wondering how the jury is going to hear this. There was a Separation Agreement with Allen Weisselberg from the Trump Organization when he left. It was a payout of 2 million over a certain period of time. The prosecution wanted to present this Separation Agreement as evidence. And they brought this up on a friday to show that Allen Weisselberg had entanglements with the Trump Organization, hence the reason he would not be appearing as a witness. Judge merchan said thats not necessarily what the document says, the Separation Document says. In fact, if you want to show the jury and or the court that Allen Weisselberg has some entanglements you have to call him to the stand, subpoena him. Sources inside the d. A. s office, theyre apprehensive of calling Allen Weisselberg to the stand because of the possibility he could get on the stand and quite honestly lie. Because of the loyalty and the entanglements toward the Trump Organization. That was rectified when judge merchan said he would not allow the Separation Agreement to be admitted as evidence. It seems as if the jury is going to have to deduce on their own as to why it is, this one guy who could really corroborate, honestly, every single thing, as you mentioned, right, you talked about in the last hour, exhibit 35, the back and forth, how much theyre going to pay out Michael Cohen, if theyre going to gross him up to 435,000, heres the lynch pin, the guy that can corroborate the testimony from Michael Cohen but he will not be appearing on the stand. So would you put him on the stand, i wonder, danny . Because there are questions that are raised about Allen Weisselberg, and if he would lie, im not saying that he would, but if he did lie, the fact that hes already serving time does not indemnify him from perjury in this case, right . Or does it . I could see another prosecutor taking that chance. If youre playing conservatively as the prosecution, the risks may outweigh the benefits and they have clearly made that decision. I was in court when the judge asked, did anyone make an effort to subpoena him. It was a genuine nope from the prosecution. They havent looked into it. It was something they didnt even consider apparently. Well, they considered it, but they didnt seek to subpoena him. So they have made the decision that they can put their case in without him, and they must realize that there is going to be a very loud silence from a witness like Allen Weisselberg, and expect the defense, possibly, to capitalize on that in their closing. Let me get into the i have to get into this. This is really interesting. Michael cohen is being asked about resolution consultants, and the purpose of the account when he was giving this to First Republic bank, and its important, lisa rubin is inside the courtroom, we have seen these documents before, but hoffinger, the description of the account was it truthful, cohen says no. Did First Republic bank know what this was for . Cohen, im not sure if they would have opened it to say, hey, to pay off a porn star in a nondisclosure agreement. Did you ever finalize this . Cohen, it dawned on me its the name of a company of someone i know and didnt think he would appreciate if i used it and changed it to Essential Consultants llc. Why is it important for Michael Cohen to testify that he was being misleading to First Republic bank. Why would First Republic bank not be chill with this payment if they knew what it was for. Banks are regulated. More than ever, banks are heavily regulated and they have questions when you want mortgages. Generally speaking, you cannot get loans for this purpose. Banks are heavily regulated, and in fact, i know from Money Laundering trials and otherwise, theres a whole beehive of activity that goes in the back office, the antiMoney Laundering unit where those folks are watching what we do. They will file things like an s. A. R. , Suspicious Activity Report without the customer knowing about it. It doesnt mean a crime has been committed. Theres a lot of regulation going on. Do they catch everything . Reportedly there was an sar, i believe the evidence shows there was an sar filed. But that goes to show, thats actually a classic example. An sar gets filed. Nothing appears to have come of it, but theyre watching, checking these things out, and Michael Cohen knew then that you cant get a loan for this purpose. You cant conduct Banking Transactions for these purposes, so he deceived the bank, and that deception will eventually be passed on to donald trump at least as cohen will tell it. Duncan, you mentioned the comment about Michael Cohen and pants on fire. Anybody who has dealt with Michael Cohen, thats not an unusual state of being for Michael Cohen