we are in the final stretch of the first criminal trial of a former president. the defense is presenting its closing arguments in donald trump's hush money trial. the former president's lead attorney, todd blanche, has spent the morning trying to plant seeds of reasonable doubt by saying the prosecution's trove of checks and documents do not link president trump to the crime. they can only believe this if they believe michael cohen. >> they moved on to stormy daniels, suggesting she hasn't told the truth either. once that's done -- we think it's getting close to the end of the defense case -- the prosecution will follow with what's expected to be four hours plus of their closing argument as they tie together their sprawling case after jurors heard from 20 witnesses. they saw about 200 pieces of evidence over a six-week period. the challenge? to sum up those arguments behind the 34 felony counts against the former president. remember, the prosecution has to connect donald trump not just to the hush money payment but also to the alleged conspiracy, the falsified business records to cover up the crime. >> that is what would make it a felony. all this in the mid many of a presidential campaign with both candidates bringing surrogates to the courthouse. donald trump backed up by all of his adult children except ivanka. joe biden by supporters robert de niro and two former january 6 police officers speaking outside the courthouse. joining us now on the set, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official construction chosen berg, federal prosecutor duncan levin and jeremy sala, a criminal defense attorney. we begin with katy tur, our friend and colleague and partner at the courthouse today. talk about your -- the key takeaways so far from the closing argument by donald trump's lead attorney. >> it has been so fascinating listening to todd blanche give his final summation. when he got up and first introduced himself to the jury, he thanked them for their service, the time that they have spent on this case, thanked them for paying close attention to the testimony and to all of the evidence. i was struck by his tone and by his manner. he didn't seem fully confident in those moments, didn't seem fully confident in the way he was delivering his thank you. then he hasn't entirely seemed confident throughout his summation. he has gotten some speed here and there. he has gotten into a rhythm at times. for the most part, it does feel like he is winding his way through this, as you listen to it. there were moments where the arguments felt tighter. there were moments where the arguments felt pretty loose, not going in a clean sequence. he seems to be getting at the nothing to see here defense, by saying that these documents, these allegedly falsified documents weren't falsified at all. they were done legally by the trump organization. he tried to claim and to argue to the jury, which i think is a stretch -- you will see it as a stretch as well -- that the agreement that he had -- that donald trump had with ami in the beginning of the campaign was fine, that it was perfectly normal, that candidates and campaigns always try to influence and work with media outlets to place positive stories and to bury negative stories. that's not the way it works when you are covering a presidential campaign or any campaign for that matter. obviously, the campaign will try to spin you. the candidate will try to spin you. you are never buying a story and covering it up and burying it on behalf of the candidate. there was one line in particular that drew a gasp at least from the overflow room where i was. that is, every campaign is a conspiracy between two people to promote a candidate. that's an exaggeration of what a campaign is. it's an exaggeration of what donald trump is -- a diplomatic exaggeration of what donald trump is accused generous of doing here in this case. regarding the emails between michael cohen and weisselberg, they said there wouldn't be emails if this was to cover something up, between don junior and eric if this was a scheme to cover something else, there would be no evidence if this was a scheme. he tried to argue two points on donald trump. one, that he was such a micromanager, so involved in the payments out of his organization, that he would never pay michael cohen more money than michael cohen deserved in talking about the doubling of the stormy daniels rate, saying instead it was just a retainer agreement, that he was paid 35 grand a month and a bonus, because that's what donald trump agreed to hold michael to after donald trump became president and retained michael cohen as his personal lawyer, that that 35 grand a month was a normal fee, that donald trump knew that was going out. at the same time they were arguing he was so busy at white house, he wasn't paying close attention to each and every invoice. he had so much going on. in two ways, trying to say donald trump was a micromanager, he understood everything, but then was so busy, he couldn't possibly have overseen all of the details of what this payment involved and what michael cohen alleges. as we expected, they really went after michael cohen. todd blanche is going after michael cohen as hard as he can saying michael cohen was out for himself, he is a liar, you can't trust anything he says, trying to lessen the meaningfulness of the testimony from david pecker and others, instead trying to focus this case on the words of michael cohen, who they believe they have the best chance of discrediting. >> katy, now, as todd blanche is talking about stormy daniels, he is painting her as a liar and extortionist. since you covered the trump campaign, i want to ask you about something that just went into the document. todd blanche talking about the "access hollywood" tape. the government wants you to believe, says todd blanche, it was so catastrophic that it provided a motive for president trump to do something criminal. president trump did not react to the tape in any way that the government is suggesting. i want to get your take on that statement by todd blanche as someone who lived it. >> i'm curious what the prosecution will argue here. as somebody who was covering the campaign in the moment, the "access hollywood" tape, from the outside looking in and from conversations in the campaign and those in the rnc, that was catastrophic. donald trump's campaign thought it was over at that moment. there were a couple people who thought he could power through. steve bannon, maybe donald trump himself and a couple others. for the most part, the campaign went silent. the top aides were not to be found. the campaign team couldn't even reach these top aides. trump tower -- i went to trump tower after this tape came out. it was empty. there was nobody inside, save for steve bannon. there was an abandoning of the ship. paul ryan was telling lawmakers, go with your heart, do whatever you can. senator lee from utah was crying on camera saying he could never support somebody like donald trump. it seemed like it was the end. that's how the rnc saw it as well, from my conversations with sources at the time. to say it didn't matter, i think it's not accurate. it did matter to the campaign. the prosecution now has the task of trying to prove to the jury that that was a motivation for donald trump to conceal these records, to conceal this payment and to mislead the public about what he was actually paying for, because a hush money payment to an adult film star that he had sex with while he was married could potentially, the prosecution will argue, be the nail in donald trump's campaign, the nail in the coffin for his campaign, especially after the "access hollywood" tape. they were very worried specifically about suburban women. >> we were going into that debate. i was covering the hillary clinton side and how big it was. that was the debate where donald trump brought out all of these women who had allegations against bill clinton. they clearly thought that this was a decisive moment in the debate. there's no question about it. both campaigns did. we saw what paul ryan and other prominent democrats were saying and were thinking of abandoning donald trump as the candidate. >> it says here, you heard politicians reacting negatively to the tape. he said, it was not a doomsday event. let me move away from the politics of this, which most people who followed it at the time, who hear from people like katy and you and who were there at the time, at the debate at the time, to how believable do you think that argument is? it wasn't a big deal and everything -- >> i think it's a bold overstatement. it's really bold. you want to oversell. i think back to -- >> do you not want to oversell to the jury in your closing? do you have to? >> you don't want to oversell. you want credibility. you want to sell, but you have to have credibility. if you can't resonate with the jury and tell them a true story, then you don't want to fall apart either. you heard in the beginning -- these are my words -- blanche said you want to expect more than michael cohen. the response is, we have more than that. we have the evidence that exists between hope hicks, phone records, the handwritten weisselberg notes. there's no evidence that this was catastrophic to trump, but that's not true. you heard from hope hicks who explained how she was frightened about what this was going to have in terms of the impact on female voters. you don't want to say something that the prosecution can turn around and say, let me show you exactly what we have, that's not true. >> that's a good way for the prosecution to quickly remind them. >> absolutely. >> if you pierce the credibility of the defense lawyer that early, if he does that to himself by overselling, your point is, that they might not believe other things he says. >> sell it and be credible. >> one other thing todd blanche says, why did they call her as a witness? there was no dispute that charges had to do with filings in the trump org of 2017, something miss daniels knows nothing about and nobody suggested she knew the inner workings of the payment system of trump org. then he said this. they did it to try to inflame your emotions. they did it to try to embarrass president trump. there was an objection. it was overruled. could that resonate that there was nothing substantial to what stormy daniels added to the legal narrative other than a salacious story that embarrasses the defendant? >> i think it's true that stormy daniels knew nothing, if not nothing, about the trump organization books and records. by the way, that would have been the appropriate cross-examination of her. i think it was important that the government call her, because she set the context. if you just take a step back, what happened? logically, what happened? mr. trump had sex with an adult film star. the "access hollywood" tape hits. she's threatening to go public with the story. it's right before a presidential election. he doesn't want it to come out. so that sets in motion a payoff. that's the context. is she important to that context? yes. does she know how books and records were kept at the trump organization? no. >> did she potentially go too far? >> you know, i think that some of it was unnecessary. but i think the rebuttal from the prosecution is the defense made that relevant by denying she had any relationship whatsoever with mr. trump. be denying that relationship, it became relevant to her credibility among other things to explain the relationship. i think could you have done without a bunch of that, frankly, from both sides. but it was appropriate in my view to call her as a witness to provide the narrative to provide the context. >> one thing that occurred to me this morning was, i expected this and he did it and said, you didn't hear from weisselberg. he mentioned people who had not been called. did the prosecution make a mistake in not calling weisselberg, even though he would have supported donald trump because he had done that repeatedly at his own risk, because he is in rikers as a result of that? should they have put him on the stand to show at least the factual basis that he wouldn't do anything without donald trump's approval? >> the simple answer to a hard question is that it's hard to know. he, mr. weisselberg, was a risk to both sides. if he wasn't a risk to both sides, one of the sides would have called him. i have gone around and around with friends of mine, former prosecutors and defense attorneys. we are a bit puzzled, but we have arrived at the conclusion that it was too unpredictable. if it was predictable, someone would have called him. >> katy tur, we have to let you go back. as we are hearing from inside the courtroom, that the jury shows no reaction, let me ask you about your observations of donald trump. were there times when, as some of our folks who are inside the courtroom seem to suggest, that todd blanche made statements that seemed to be playing to the client? >> i mean, he talked about how donald trump was the former president a lot. he mentioned his time in the white house, trying to both placate his client but put in the jury's mind that this is not a normal defendant. the weight of the decision on their shoulders to potentially make donald trump the first former president to be convicted of a crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony or multiple felonies, and the history that comes with that. it's a monumental task that is being asked of this jury. at the same time, it's an everyday task that juries are being asked to decide on all the time, except this is the president of the united states. you have to imagine that that's in their head. there were moments where he talked about stormy daniels. he mentioned emphatically that donald trump denies he had an affair with stormy daniels. if he admitted to it, it would have gotten him out of trouble in this case. but that's playing to donald trump, who has repeatedly denied the affair. there was also a moment when they were talking about david pecker and ami and the relationship that donald trump had with ami and david pecker. they mentioned that david pecker said donald trump was the biggest seller for his magazines. he was the best seller when he was on the cover. it was supposed to tell the jury, if you had a huge story about donald trump or any story, putting that on the front cover would make him a ton of money. also, something that plays to the ego of his client. his client likes to be told he matters. his client likes to be told he is a big deal. he likes to be told that when he is a part of something, it sells more. he talks about tv ratings all the time, when i'm on a debate, look how great the ratings were. at the -- in the polls, look how great the polling is for me, for the voting numbers, look how many people turned out for me, his rallies, look how many people are here. all of that amplified donald trump's ego. you have to imagine that todd blanche understands his client and is playing to him as well. >> 43 minutes to get back here for the top of the hour. we hope that the mta -- the subway -- >> i got my running shoes on. >> see you soon. thank you. >> the clock is ticking. katy tur, that's great. thank you. check rosen, duncan and jeremy. >> let me go back to the document. this is interesting. >> i was going to ask about the costello thing. >> i was going to jump to something else. jump to costello. >> i'm wondering, blanche is going into robert costello. he was a terrible defense witness. the conclusion of lots of lawyers, many of you included. duncan, why would he bring up costello and try to clean that up? he felt he had to. but he is trying to say that it was michael cohen lying about costello and they really had a relationship. >> there was no reason to call robert costello. the reason they tried to do this was they wanted to discredit michael cohen, they have to. they thought by portraying michael cohen as a liar -- >> right now, blanche is going into costello and rehashing his testimony. >> that's their defense case, is that michael cohen is a liar. in their position, robert costello proves that michael cohen is lying. he impugns his integrity. the problem is robert costello not only had a terrible disposition during trial, he got destroyed on cross-examination. they showed emails that came out that showed he was acting for trump. there were emails where he was disparaging michael cohen. he was saying he was try -- they were afraid michael cohen was flipping and that's the reason he was brought there. it was a misstep to bring on costello in the first place. it's all they have. they have to play with what they have. >> or is this another case, jeremy, of playing to your client to try to -- >> he testified. you don't want to leave him out there. you can't have him dangling. it's going to hurt them, because you know the prosecution is going to say something about costello. costello did serve a point. i'm not sure the number, but it was 10 to 12 times he said michael cohen told him the president was unaware, not involved for lack of a better term in terms of the payment to stormy daniels. there's value in that. to duncan's point, he imploded. he became what everyone expected michael cohen would be and assumed donald trump would be if he testified, disrespectful and unhinged. you can't just leave it dangling. you have to address it. you have to use your strength. if that's your strength that there are things there you want to use to impeach michael cohen's testimony and your theory is if you can't believe michael cohen it falls like a house of cards, you have to run with costello. >> that's what he is saying. he is saying putting -- talking about mr. costello, mr. cohen taking the witness stand and lying to you, that's another example of it. he went on to say, i don't know how many lies are enough lies to just reject mr. cohen's testimony, big or small, meaningful or unmeaningful, but that was a lie. it's interesting that that seems to be what he comes back to in every single instance. he goes off michael cohen for a little while. but he always comes back to, michael cohen is at the heart of this but is a liar. is the risk, the jury says michael cohen isn't on trial here and maybe i do believe the central parts of his testimony? >> his testimony is corroborated. they are focusing in like a laser on certain moments where they contend michael cohen lied to the jury. for example, there was a moment in his direct examination michael cohen said, i never wanted to be chief of staff. they cross-examined him and scored points on that. there were emails showing he wanted to be chief of staff. he said, i never disputed the underlying facts of my tax crimes. they cross-examined him with it. there was one instance about a phone call on october 24, 2016, that the defense scored points on and said that -- this was a phone call where michael cohen said he spoke with donald trump about the stormy daniels payment. the defense found text messages immediately leading up between mr. cohen and keith schiller, showing that was not about stormy daniels but was about a 14-year-old girl who had been harassing mr. cohen. >> right now, he is -- blanche is bringing that sequence up. >> what he is not bringing up, which the prosecution is going to bring up, is that later that day there were 20 frantic messages between mr. cohen and mr. pecker talking about the stormy daniels payment. the next day there was a text message from the "national enquirer" to dylan howard, to mr. cohen, saying we better get together on this or we will look bad. the day after that the wire payment to stormy daniels through essential consulting, llc, mr. cohen's shell company that he said up. the day after that, the day the nda was signed. >> duncan, what he is saying -- he is going through the sequence of the 14-year-old. as you point out, he is leaving t