we are wrapping our part of our special recap of today's closing arguments in trump's criminal trial but do not go anywhere. coverage continues with the last word, and lawrence o'donnell, who spent all day today in court and has the back pain to prove it. >> i was working on my posture for most of the day, rachel. two full reporters notebooks today. i've never filled up two in the day before, i think. certainly not on the courtroom day. it went on longer than any of us expected, i think longus than most thought was necessary but it was one of those no stone unturned closings by the prosecution. the defense, i thought, was as effective as they could be, given the cars that have been dealt them. they have some contradictions in their theory of the case but this is a criminal defense team trying to defend donald trump. good luck with that. it's going to look pretty messy. >> judge merchan said at the outset that he likes for the jury to get both summations on one day i felt like heading into the day, i was so worried about whether or not there would be other tilings and from the trial, which sort of ended on the schedule he didn't want last week and whether they would be able to squeeze them in. i was thinking each summation would be like 90 minutes. well, we got three hours and that was the short one, and then four hours and 40 minutes is the second one. it really was an endurance test for the jury, but the judge, who seems to be very bonded with this jury, does seem to think that it is in their best interest that they got them both today, that they didn't have a break and when they come back fresh tomorrow, they're just looking at him and listening to him. >> yes, and the judge did say when this thing was well into overtime, after the jury left for recess he told the lawyers, i've been watching the jury. they still seem to be with us. they still seem to be ready to keep going but of course, the jury wants to go. they want to get this job done and have it be over with as soon as is reasonably possible for them so the judge had already said to them listen, we might need to go late on tuesday night. they were warned about that a week ago, so they were ready to go late tonight but boy, when we heard the prosecutors say he maybe had four hours of material, i have to say, it felt like i, are we going to be here tomorrow morning finishing the final summation here? but, the judge really didn't want that to happen and just to show you, the judge does have limits to his patients. this is one of those things that you had to kind of be in the courtroom four. in the last 10 minutes or so of josh steinglass' summation, the judge clearly was finished like this really should be over, there was a moment where there was an objection, it was abstained -- sustained, and in the prosecutor said may we approach. now, everything time either lawyer said may we approach in this trial, every single time, they approached the bench and had a bench conference. this time, in the fourth hour of the d.a.s summation, when he said to the judge, we -- may we approach? there's no word in the transcript because it's just the judge shaking his head no. no. don't even think about approaching. you should approach the exit is what the judge was letting him know. >> i know you need to start your portion of the recap and this is rude of me to do but can i ask you one more question about your experience in the courtroom? you have been in the court a bunch of days. do you have a vibe from the jury? in terms of what you think -- how you think the jury is behaving, whether there might be a holdout or two juror who really isn't paying attention, who might not be there in good faith? >> i'm so glad you asked that, because that is exactly how i was about to begin this discussion here. there is, by the way, nothing on the teleprompter tonight. i haven't had the time to write a single word rushing from the courthouse to appear, but this is exactly how i wanted to begin i'm glad to begin it with you. i have now heard all of the testimony, every word of the summations, and that's maybe the most important thing you can do. if you can pick one day to be there, that would be the date and so, what i can tell the audience and i can tell you is of been in a lot of courtrooms out of course of my life. i've heard a lot of testimony and had strong feelings about possible vertex at the end of summations. i have certainly had strong feelings about what the obvious and correct verdict is and only some kind of jury bias can derail this. this is one where i don't have any idea. i'm coming out of this with no ability to read this jury at all. this afternoon i had one of the best use of the jury i thought of the entire trial. by the way, in that courtroom, no one has a good view of every juror. that's impossible the way this courtroom is laid out. sometimes you will have a better view of the backside of the jurors. i've seen all of these jurors at different times and study the mall as much as i could. i can't find anything from any of them, and i offer them that is praise, because that is what they should be delivering in the courtroom. they should be delivering nothing except their attention, where their attention is merited, whether it is the witness stand or the attorneys podium, as it was today, and they are fully and constantly attentive, more so than any jury i've ever seen. you don't see a moment of them drifting off at any point, even at the times when some of us in the audience might drift off a bit because it might feel like we are going down a tangent. that jury is so attentive and so on point all the way through, and they've never given me the slightest hint that i've heard from anyone else, anyone getting hints about how this jury is feeling. i think the defense did everything they could today and throughout the trial, to introduce reasonable doubt, and it is always a question of, is that enough reasonable doubt that the defense has introduced for enough jurors? is it enough reasonable doubt for one juror? is it enough for 12. i don't know. the prosecution present its case beyond a reasonable doubt? i think that could be a very clear and relatively easy finding for this jury, but i come out of it able to tell you, rachel, i have no idea which way this verdict is going to come out. i will not be surprised by any version of this verdict. >> that's fascinating to hear you say that. i'm glad to hear you take the time to do it. i'm sorry to be taking over your hour, but we are starting to see the first reporting now that is attributing, you know, confidence or hope or worry about jurors to one side or the other in the case, and it feels like wishful thinking and projection by in this case, the trump side, that it does more than anything that seems actually observable in the courtroom and it seems like that's a good reality check for all of us. that was my experience, as well, been there a couple days. there is nothing this jury has done to tell you how they're going to deliberate or whether any of them will act in a bad- faith way and enforce a hung jury when one is not deserved, and at this point, it really is in the jurors' hands and this judge has treated them with respect and they've treated the process with respect and that's how it supposed to go. >> yes, that is absolutely the case. for me, and most of the trials i have seen, jury guesswork has been a complete waste of time. i have wasted none of my time on that subject in that courtroom. >> thank you, my friend. much appreciated. i hope you get some important ibuprofen in your picture. >> well, it was the, does anyone believe that, presentation by the prosecution versus the, you cannot believe michael cohen, defense by the defense. that is really what it came down to. it was the loudest moment the prosecutor had today in his closing summation. does anyone believe that? he said it very excitedly, with exclamation points, and what he was talking about was the theory of the defense that donald trump had no idea that the business records being kept for michael collins payments were not accurate, and the prosecutor went through all the ways in which donald trump had to know and had to have caused the falsifying of those business records, which is what the case is about. it is about the falsification of business records and when it came down to the most important kind of detailed points about all of that, the prosecutor's argument came down to, does anyone believe that? it was a very effective moment. there were several other effective moments for the prosecution and the defense today. we are going to take our courtroom panel around the table tonight, through everything that happened there. leading off our special tonight, adam, who was in the courtroom today as he has been every day. what happened to your pass? at lunchtime you didn't have your pass to get back in and then how did you solve the problem? that's everyone's nightmare the chicken a show up without the ticket. >> it was my nightmare. it was recovered by the court staff. >> and lisa rubin here today. lisa, you love this. adam is walking in right behind me without his past. he realized that as we were going through the x-ray machine and he thinks this is can work. he walks in behind me past the court officer to get the elevator and he says i'm with lawrence. exactly. the officer did not laugh, because he thought he was crazy, and so he immediately sent him away from the elevator. andrew weissmann also with us. andrew , on the way out here to the studio, i foolishly said to you, have you ever done a summation longer than that one, to which the answer was -- >> yes. i had a couple things, which is, it is really important for people to remember -- it's not even the elephant in the room because it is in the trial, that this is a former president of the united states who may become the future president of the united states and why is that relevant? because if you are the prosecutor, one of the things you are thinking about is whether the jury is going to hold you to a higher standard of proof. to the question of, if this was a normal case against donald trump or any other defendant, like the ceo of a company of course, you never know what a jury is going to do. there could be an acquittal, but if you would ask, you know, 10 prosecutors, they would be like, this is going to be a conviction. as much as any case you could ever have that prediction, the unknown here, and the reason that i could see why josh steinglass gave a soup to nuts, i have to do everything, is that concern about this sort of subconsciously, is the jury going to be saying that a case that involves some good direct evidence, but a whole lot of circumstantial evidence, which is just as valid, is one where, is the jury going to be saying to convict him, i need more than the circumstantial evidence that is here, and so i think that sort of plays into it and the other quick comment about the jury. having been on the jury, yes, we can think about, is there a holdout right now but the jury right now has no idea about what the jury thinks because they are not deliberating. >> the guy standing beside me, i don't know what he thinks. >> exactly, so the first time they will have an opportunity to really find out what the jury's thinking is tomorrow, after the jury instructions and they are finally in a room where they are allowed to talk about it. i am confident they've not talked about the case in the jury room. you don't want to get kicked off the case because you start talking about it because one of the jurors could report it so they really don't know how the whole jury's thinking at this point. you know, they can take a straw vote, which is pretty normal when you first start and that is the first inclination where they are. >> lisa, what was todd blanchard's best moment this morning? i say this morning. it feels like about i don't know, last week sometime. >> i think todd blanchard's moment was not actually his best moment. it was when he called up two different recordings of michael cohen from his podcast and brought the jury back to michael cohen that was not the guy that they saw in this courtroom, whereas josh steinglass reminded them today, michael cohen spent more hours on cross-examination than he did actually working for donald trump in 2017, just to give some context there, so the michael cohen that the jury came to know is a very calm, lucid, unflappable michael cohen. by playing those two excerpts, the demeanor he exhibits during those excerpts isn't [ inaudible ] enough to raise those motors because not just the content of what he is saying, but the cadence and the fury in those excerpts lead someone to think oh, wait, that's not the guy i met last week. who is that? is that who that guy really is? if i were a juror, i would've been perseverating on those two recordings in my head, thinking wait a second. >> the first time i ever heard the podcast, sounds just utterly insane. >> manic, almost. >> like he's in a straitjacket and screaming. it burst into the courtroom bigger than any cloudburst you've ever heard. it's so upsets the sound of the courtroom. >> particularly since we are in a room, that generally speaking, is not full of bombastic personalities. todd blanche has called up a lot of drama for him, but that is not his natural state. he is generally that every man you want to have a beer within his natural state. josh steinglass can bring the drama but again, he's not allowed volume, highly theatrical guy and we know who judge merchan is now. he is sort of a grandfatherly, parental figure who when he gets angry almost talks more softly for effect so given that we are in this courtroom with a lot of people who don't necessarily have huge personalities, huge voices, to play those recordings of: where he is talking at a speed that seems unreasonable and talking at the pitch with venom in his voice to your point was very jarring to hear. >> we are going to cover a lot of prosecution. the one thing i say about the prosecution is that the evidence the prosecution has is very familiar to our audience. that is been available to us for a long time. we've been presenting most of it here for a long time. what we were sitting around waiting for is what is the defense. now that we've heard today's most cogent presentation of the truck defense in this case, todd blanche kept coming back to reasonable doubt. he was not going for an innocent. he was not going for that. he understood look, donald trump cannot be defended as an innocent person. donald trump did stuff and did stuff within the story that you're not going to like but did todd blanche wedge in enough reasonable doubt for a jury to cling to? >> i think the answer to that question helps explain why josh steinglass went so long. i think the strongest part of blanche's presentation was in the morning when he stuck to the law. there was this one part where he was talking about the intent to defraud, and there is one line, there is no other way to characterize an invoice from a lawyer to former president trump's and call it a legal expense. the government has criminalized that, has said that is a crime, what the administrator did. that's absurd. it's not a crime and he said later he talked about the mechanics of how these ledger entries were entered and he pointed out it was a drop-down menu and presumably from the drop-down menu, there is not hush money to adult film star so when he resigned himself to the law that was the strongest part of his defense summation and i think where things started to go off and i think where steinglass is very effective is where blanche started coming along with his one-liners, calling cohen the mvp of lies, the greatest liar of all time, the living embodiment of reasonable doubt. that he would do this in the scattershot way, and i am a little biased toward this moment here of what i thought was effective because i predicted this moment on this show last week where i said that it seems the defense is pushing this internal inconsistency, this logical inconsistency that is going to be called out by the prosecution, and steinglass did and the moment was when tarring: -- cohan as a thief in the defense wanted to have it both ways in the words of the prosecution. in any event, none of this matters because it's not a defense of the defaults is this records charge that one of the co-conspirators is also guilty of stealing from another and i will tell you something else that was kind of funny and steinglass actually laughed at that. and said, i don't know if someone caught this during the summation but mr. blanche that well, he stole $60,000, right, because it was grossed up, so that means that the defense is trying to have it both ways. they can call him a c4 claim this was not really a reimbursement, but not both. >> right, it is the internal conflict in the defense there is that i've been watching for, which is that it is not a reimbursement. that is his paycheck. he earns his paycheck by doing the legwork and as lisa points out the d.a. said today, michael cohen spent less time doing legal work for that money than he spent in cross-examination in this courtroom, but so, it's not a reimbursement, it's a paycheck. that's one defense argument and then overhears the other defense argument that in this reimbursement formula, michael cohen lied about how much he should be reimbursed and so he was reimbursed too much. we get to call him a thief because it's reimbursement but wait a minute, you just called it a paycheck but now you're saying he's a thief because it's reimbursement. >> so, in todd's defense, i do not think it was a good summation, just to be clear. >> was there a way of him -- because i just sat there waiting for him to solve that problem. was there a way for him to solve it? >> first, it's not uncommon for defense lawyers to have very inconsistent arguments and facts and because you're only trying to get something to one juror and you don't know what that thing will be so you are presenting a whole range of things, and unlike an appeal for you pick your best suit and go with that, you really do try to present is much as you can and hope something sticks without saying something ridiculous. you know, he did, and there were a few things where he should've gone there. i'm pretty sure his client insisted on it but the reason i thought there was a real problem is, and the gift of todd blanche to this case and to josh steinglass was a little bit like the gift of costello to josh steinglass, which is, there is what todd blanche addressed, and huge problems with what he did not address. as you have pointed out, nothing in any way cogent about exhibits 35 and 36, the handwritten notes. >> they never explained. >> everyone knew. we've been sitting here. we talked about them over and over again. you have to have a theory. if you don't have a theory, your client better be pleading guilty. i mean, you have to have some theory. there was no discussion of hope hicks with any of the damaging testimony, just to use her for some embroidery, but not to deal with the substance. the second problem, david pecker. again, not dealing with damaging information. nothing was said about that. to then say about the access hollywood tape, the only thing you're going to say about it is that it wasn't a big deal? i mean again, you have to come up with a better argument or just not address it, so josh steinglass was just given all these gifts because all of that proved nothing was so -- said, so that was -- i kept on thinking susan had to be sitting there dying. >> she was physically as far away as she could be. she wasn't just at the end of the regular council table. she moved over to where the junior lawyers were to get even farther. >> and she is the most experienced defense lawyer in that room other than maybe susan hollinge