welcome to prime time weekend, let's get right to the week's top stories. >> 22 witnesses, 21 days of court, 80 hours of witness testimony later, the first-ever criminal trial of an american ex-president is coming to a close. the fate of the ex-president could be in the hands of 12 every day new yorkers from all walks of life. the prosecution has one last chance to hammer home it's case against trump and closing arguments, that happens tuesday, given that the defense put up just to witnesses, their eight hour cross-examination of michael cohen lasting four times longer than their entire presentation, only the manhattan da is wrestling with the challenge of reminding the jury about all of the testimony presented. all of the documentary evidence, bombshell after bombshell, after bombshell. here's just some of what the jury heard as told by the press covering it. >> jurors listening intently today as the former publisher of the inquire testified about the confidential arrangement made with trump to help his campaign. >> hope hicks cast out on her -- out of the kindness of his heart. >> adult film star stormy daniels was questioned in detail about alleged sexual encounter with trump back in 2006. >> michael cohen testifying against his former boss. his former fixer turned foe, michael cohen, taking the stand for his highly anticipated testimony. >> michael cohen brought trump closer than any other witness to the alleged scheme. >> so all the testimony and all of the evidence was intended to drive home the point that the entire conspiracy to conceal hush money payments that were made to suppress damaging information about donald trump from getting out and being known by the american voter before the 2016 election was done at the behest of and at the direction of donald trump. during his opening statement, trump's attorney asked the question, think for a moment, would a man who pinches pennies repay $130,000 debt to the tune of $420,000? to that question, prosecutors said heck yes, and they showed where the math was done, they brought a wealth of circumstantial evidence and such documents to make their case. also how they sought to conceal the hush money. also revealing that trump is a boss who kept a close eye on everyone of his pennies, to trump's own words from his own books, that reveal he was a proud self-described micromanager and cheapskate, making it all the more plausible that he had to have known about a plan to conceal payments made to stormy daniels. as for trump's team, they will be coming off of an attempt to discredit the star witness in the case, michael cohen, from those of us watching, from the cheap seats, that seem to go a ride -- all right, cassels saying trump did not know about the payments, was literally undone by his son words specifically enough that he wrote and said, that show that he aimed to pressure michael cohen into protecting donald trump. but repeatedly invoking trump. the defense had hoped to damage mr. cohen beyond repair. mr. costello's performance may be remembered, too. the trump election interference hush money trial is where we start. we've all been living together and what's been happening as we come on the air. today is the first day to exhale and kind of process what was happening and i have to say, every day, what we had sort of prepared to read and present to our viewers based on what happened, was not what we and covering because something twisted, something turned, something happened in a way no one expected it to. >> i was going to say i've never done a trial where something unexpected doesn't happen, you can prepare all you want, and something, some piece of evidence, something takes on a life of its own. the other thing, and i used to prepare witnesses this way when i had witnesses like michael cohen is i would say to them, look, no one can prepare you for everything. it's just not possible, something is going to be presented, and this is what you need to know. no matter what it is, just remember, just think in your head, think about what you remember and just say it. it doesn't matter if it's really bad, doesn't matter if you are saying i stole money from the defendant. just remember the truth. and i think, just to relate it to this trial, it goes to i think frankly the only point where the defense actually scored any sort of point was on what i think now is just a lot of theater and i think to me, i took it as a test of how michael cohen was prepared and how he did on the stand, which is, i thought he actually answered with that kind of lodestar in mind and said this is what i still remember and then to me, it was important because it kept him thinking about, he did not know when he was talking about a phone call where the record was with keith schiller in fact, that that was going to be at a time that donald trump was actually going to be there. what if he said that and it turns out that donald trump was actually giving a speech or was in a different location and it turns out, he was like no, i think that's when it happened and i think to me, it was something i would argue is very cooperative of him and i'm not surprised that something unexpected happened that changed the narrative, but that is how trials work. >> and in terms of a plot twist that changes the narrative and again we have no idea how the jury experienced any of it but we do know the jury saw the courtroom cleared out, multiple occasions for only one witness and that was for costello. >> that was such a huge mistake. i don't know for a fact, but i just, it has to be that that was donald trump's decision, not speaking for the jurors, it did so many things, as we were talking before, it cooperates michael cohen as to who this guy is, and why he didn't trust him so he is an exhibit in that sense. it shows that he was the leader, show that there was a conspiracy to try and keep michael cohen from being heard by this jury. that's what i would argue, it's like that man, meaning the defendant, did not want you to hear from batman on the witness stand. and that's because you knew he had the goods, and just his demeanor, to your point, michael cohen is the person who we thought would behave like bob costello and bob costello behaved in a way, where there's no way that the jury did not react to that. at that point in the trial, they have lived with the most dispassionate, lovely, you know, judge, with incredible judicial temperament, and here, they have every reason to like this particular judge, there is no way that they did not think that this was highly inappropriate, and this was the defendant's case. >> yeah, again, we don't know if the jury is consuming the evidence, but in the narrative suite that the prosecution presented, it was a story about a conspiracy, the principles are donald trump and david pecker. and the person is a mid-level staffer in that, is michael cohen, this story concludes dramatically in the cross- examination . and the prosecution gets to land on new evidence of the effort to suppress the mid-level staffer who in every bond movie is the guy that flips and trump's role is to make sure that michael cohen could sleep at my spirit -- night. >> i think back to susan hoffman just direct on michael cohen and how they set up the narrative of robert costello without knowing at the time that costello is going to be called as a defense witness because for all intents and purposes, he was a late add on friday when tom went her reach out to costello as to whether or not he would testify, he said he was ready, willing and able and actually wanted to testify but had not spoken to the lead attorney todd blanche but in that narrative, in setting up costello in this relationship half and are asked cohen, do they have sex, she asked him, and he said no, he didn't tell him the truth and in fact, he didn't trust him, and that is why he did not tell him the truth. i remember when the moment happened, i remember talking about it as to why michael cohen said he did not retain this individual who was a good friend of giuliani's, who had emailed him and said you have friends in high places, i'm meeting with my client who was meeting with his client meaning rudy giuliani, and the president of the united states at the time, what do you want me to communicate, then when costello took the stand and acted the way in which he did in the courthouse, going to andrew's point, really cooperating michael cohen's testimony, a lot of jurors i imagine walked away on that what was it, monday one robert costello first took the stand, and instead of thinking about michael cohen and what may have come from a testimony, they likely walked away thinking about costello and the way he acted towards judge merchan. you and i saw it with stormy daniels, they, there energy feeds off judge merchan and if he is not into one of the witnesses or feels as if the witness is being disrespectful then he holds them to account. and i imagine they were feeding off of the same energy that they felt from judge merchan, rolling his eyes at him, staring him down, i can't imagine they walked away thinking much about michael cohen, instead thinking about costello. >> and to the degree that they will be asked to make relative judgments, yeah, there was this question on one day about one call that made me wonder if michael cohen was telling the truth about what he talked about with schiller but the defense, there only person that came out and spoke for the defendants innocence, if you will, he is much worse than anything they said about michael cohen on cross, how much do juries take into consideration the relativity in terms of the credibility of one over the other? >> i think, it is the key question and the short answer is quite a bit. so, as you say, we trooped up after every court day when there were twists and turns and covered them breathlessly. it's not how the jury experienced it. they did experience it more as a narrative sweep and it's the way that jurors are supposed to experience it and they make overall judgments who is telling the truth and who isn't. so i think in part, because he was fairly unperturbed or honest on the stand as andrew says, it wasn't a seismic moment for them when michael cohen was a little bit knocked off his feet where's -- whereas costello, that's the principal coming into the classroom in second grade, that was memorable and they noticed it and i'm sure they talked about it a lot, but the important point is it cooperates a general story, and i think you know, 12 people, you never know, but my experience, i think, would substantiate this, jurors make general judgments about who is being straight and who isn't, not just michael cohen but stormy daniels and david pecker, they have warts as witnesses but you could tell that they gave it a story that coheres with one another and is basically the truth. and i think that general impression is what they will take on tuesday when the prosecution tries to tie it all together. and not the sort of isolated dramatic points where he is knocked back a little bit. >> how does the prosecution close? >> i think big picture for the prosecution is twofold. this is true for every single trial i've ever seen or ever done. the prosecution needs to make sure that the jury is going to consider all of the proof together. that may sound like andrew, of course, but the defense is constantly saying, this piece doesn't prove the case. this piece does, look at all the data, but that is not how a trial works, and i always give this example, about the police arrive at an apartment and the defendant is there and there's a dead body on the floor and the defendant has a gun and there is a bullet in the dead body and the person says i did it, i did it, and the defense is, there's nothing wrong with finding a dead body in your house, there's nothing wrong with saying the words i did it, nothing wrong with owning a gun, they separate each piece without looking at it all. and here, that is going to be really important because you want them to consider just the massive amounts of evidence when you put together david pecker and hicks, you could do this all without michael cohen. you can talk about costello and you can talk about physical pieces of evidence, exhibits 35 and 36, the telephone records any want to say look at this entire picture. the idea that donald trump, the cheapskate micromanager that is conceded by todd blanche, he did not know, there would be zero reason for him not to know and every reason for him to know. so you want to put that all together and then you turn to michael cohen because you can make an incredibly strong case and say you don't even need that, and then let's talk about all the ways that he has cooperated. so -- >> do you bring in costello and then you bring in trump's owned -- >> absolutely, i would be using him and all sorts of ways and stressing, this is their case and it actually supports what we said and i would use it to completely cooperate michael cohen. would you trust him? >> how bad is he? he is so bad this convicted felon didn't trust him. >> it's in black and white, so you you got but you also use it to say, let's just talk about obstruction in this case. let's talk about what was going on about what happens in these cases and who is doing it, and who has put this person forward for you as their defender. they chose to put this person on as their defense. >> still to come for us, the latest pile of absolutely lunacy the tacit sizing in the republican party, spewing out to an electorate ready and willing to eat it up, donald trump's latest boldface lie that could pose a new and growing threat to our nation's law enforcement officials. enforf i . what if you could go from this to this. with just one step tresemmé silk serum. time for the ultimate humidity test. weightlessly smooth hair your turn. new tresemmé keratin smooth collection. after advil: let's dive in! but...what about your back? it's fineeeeeeee! [splash] before advil: advil dual action fights pain two ways. advil targets pain at the source, acetaminophen blocks pain signals. advil dual action. my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. when enamel is gone, you cannot get it back. but you can repair it with pronamel repair. it penetrates deep into the tooth to actively repair acid weakened enamel. i recommend pronamel repair. with new pronamel repair mouthwash you can enhance that repair beyond brushing. they work great together. - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! you can enhance twhat? i'm 12 hours short.g. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line. this is remington. ...he's a member of the family, for sure. we always fed them kibble— it just seemed like the thing to do. but ...he was getting picky we heard about the farmer's dog... and it was a complete transformation. his coat was so soft, he had amazing energy. he was a completely different dog. it's a no-brainer that (remi) should have the most nutritious and delicious food possible. i'm investing in my dog's health and happiness. granted, trump's campaign has used lies without any shame or flinching or blinking to mobilize and animate his supporters on a daily basis. but believe me when i tell you that this time it's different. this information, of a stripe in variety that goes well beyond the size of his crowds, or his golf scores, a dangerous lie this time. we reported it for you yesterday, trump's entirely false assertion that the department of justice authorized the fbi to use deadly force in its 2022 court approved search of mar-a-lago, that lie has exploded, the campaign used it in a fundraising emailed suggesting that joe biden was locked and loaded, ready to quote, take him out on the date of the court approved search warrant was carried out then the marjorie taylor greene's of the world, they augmented and amplified the lie suggesting that president joe biden intended to assassinate trump. and his allies in conservative media, what did they do? watch. >> this was an attempted assassination attempt on donald trump. >> why was garlic -- garland pressuring for a what, potential shootout? >> to come in without doj, without all of that, identifying so that they could engage in deadly force. >> does that mean that joe biden was authorizing the fbi, if it came to that, and he resisted arrest, it would be okay to kill donald trump? >> that's what it seems. >> so, i won't describe them all in one broad brush but most of those people are smart enough to know that what they were saying was bill barr's favorite word, . you have to ignore all the facts in front of our eyes, why would president joe biden put any such order on paper, why would anybody do that. well, he wouldn't, neither with the department of justice do that. why would they use the same language in the search warrant for mar-a-lago at president joe biden's home, are they going to get him, too? quite a summer. did the president intend to assassinate himself or someone else in his own house? the reality is different, and the fbi has already explained what the reality is. this language is standard, it's boilerplate, it is the norm in going about executing a search warrant. but as always trump and his enablers, are not interested in letting the facts, even when they could put the lives of law enforcement officials on the line, they are not interested in the truth. frank joins me and david. frank, your thoughts? >> i don't know whether to laugh or cry but this is so gravely serious that it can't be treated as humor. we've lost a segment of our population that either is incapable or seems incapable of doing independent thought and their own research but, some of the people did their own research when it came to the pandemic and they decided, some of them, to ingest fish tank cleanser because they thought it was an acceptable form of ivermectin. the other group of people are people who absolutely no as you said, they are smart enough to know that you can look this stuff up and it's verifiable and yet, they continue to shovel it into their followers mounts, who swallow it whole. i have done countless ops orders, written them, approve them, been physically on search warrants and arrest warrants and i can tell you, i can't recall seeing an ops order that did not include the deadly force policy, you know why? because it's required, and if people were smart enough to look at the released document from the court, if you would see in the bottom right corner, a federal form, there's a number there. that means, this is a template that we use every single time. it does not change. and the part that stays in there is the deadly force policy. so, i would ask some of the people who are saying why was this even necessary, even if it's required, why would you do it? because it's in every document and the cause in my experience, when you send people in and you say, this is low threat, no worries, somebody gets hurt, i can give you an example after example including examples where people got killed because they weren't vigilant on a seemingly routine search or arrest. agents, killed because they weren't vigilant and the fact that it's in the biden consensual search and i emphasize consensual, everybody was cooperating, you can't get lower risk than that but yet the deadly force policy was in that, too, because you don't take it out, and things happen, murphy's law happens all the time in law enforcement, things go sou