Live Breaking News & Updates on Understanding recall
Stay updated with breaking news from Understanding recall. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
>> in their own case because you want to blunt the edge. >> quickly, caroline, we've talked about how the defense doesn't have to give an opening statement. it sounds like, based on what our understanding is, there will be an opening statement in this case, but are there risks to giving an opening statement if you are the defense? are you showing your cards? >> not in this case. i expect here the theme we will see, the prosecution is always going to want to boil things down, make it really simple, as maya said, focus on that brass ring. psychology is everywhere in a trial. the defense, complexity, confusion always works for their advantage. i suspect they will say, listen to the evidence carefully. does all of this make sense to you? they're going to harp on the law, harp on the specific elements, say it doesn't add up. confused juries always works for the defense's aid. >> our special coverage on msnbc continues with a look at the
wasn't well enough to engage with the bbc. if you have a suspended presenter, clearly you need to reach a decision on whether they are coming back or not. it was very much dealt with as an hr issue, as i understand it. there were suggestions huw edwards has been paid throughout it. that wouldn't be surprising when he's one of the highest—paid news person. whatever the amount of money, my understanding is the rules are that you will still be paid while the investigation is going on. i understand he's not walking away with a payout. the understand he's not walking away with a payout-— with a payout. the longer it went out, the with a payout. the longer it went out. the more — with a payout. the longer it went out, the more questions - with a payout. the longer it went out, the more questions about i out, the more questions about someone on a high salary being paid. it is an hr issue and he will be treated the same as any other member
if you look at the full tip of 13 minutes that has been released by sky tv, you have a different understanding of what happened as opposed to the clip that has been referred to. the clip that has been used by them. in the wider clip you have police officers offering to work with him to go to any place, he is not there alone, he is with a large group, they are filming the encounter and they want to walk across the march at a particular point. they are being guided to a crossing point which he refuses to go to. he pushes past a police officer, i think he was very fortunate not to be arrested. so there is a different context to the small clip that has been released, and this is beholden on media organisations not to just follow social media clips back to scrutinise and go behind the story. and so there is an understanding
>> and vaughn, there was an objection just now, right? >> reporter: yeah, there was an objection after todd blanche spoke the words, paint this as sinister, but this is a crime, you will hear it is not. at that point todd blanche said entering into a nondisclosure agreement is perfectly legal. that is when the objection was made. the objection was overruled, though. we assume here at this point in time gets to the heart of the extent to which the defense team is going to try to make the case that everything that was done was done legally and that hush money payments are not in themself a crime. the judge merchan just overruled that objection. we'll try to get a better understanding of how that scene played out. to the discussion that you were just having, what todd blanche is trying to paint donald trump as an unwitting actor here. somebody who was unaware of exactly how the ledger was being
of staff. ., . , treated the same as any other member of staff. . . , �* , treated the same as any other member ofstaff. , �*, ._ of staff. exactly. let's hope any member of— of staff. exactly. let's hope any member of staff _ of staff. exactly. let's hope any member of staff anywhere, - of staff. exactly. let's hope any member of staff anywhere, if . of staff. exactly. let's hope any i member of staff anywhere, if you of staff. exactly. let's hope any - member of staff anywhere, if you are suspended, you don't want people talking and leaking to newspapers about why you aren't there or what they are investigating. employees expect those matters to be confidential, and the bbc has treated them confidentially, as far as i can see it. we knew something would come, and there were only two options here. either huw edwards leaves the bbc or he comes back. i suppose some people were saying could he come back as not a presenter of news at ten. my understanding is this is final, he isn't coming back. it is a big moment, in terms of who presents those key, important moments in our nation's history. it those key, important moments in our nation's history-— nation's history. it won't be huw edwards. thank _
is saying to the jury. president trump did not pay mr. cohen back $130,000. president trump paid michael cohen $420,000. would a frugal businessman, would a man who pinches pennies repay a $130,000 debt to the tune of 420,000, this was no at payback. he paid more than he needed to so it can't be for a hush money deal of some sort. >> i think that's the argument they have to make. there are going to be facts they cannot ignore. payments have been made. there are going to be bank records. so yes, a defense doesn't have the burden, but a jury needs to have use their common sense and a have a story or an understanding they can buy into. a jury has to say what happens. i think what todd branch is doing here, he has to offer them a counterexplanation. it's not enough to say the prosecution didn't meet the burden. those documents are there. that money went, people received
regard. and again, you just have to attack attack, attack those, those witnesses and look what you've got to say is michael cohen should be a co-defendant if you believe with the prosecutors just said michael cohen, shubi, co-defendant, not a witness. he has so many reasons to lie. sony seasons to pin this on someone else, to keep himself out of jail. tell which was unable to do in the federal case i mean, michael cohen is a felon. >> he isn't admitted liar, just the prosecution's case, you think rise and fall with his credibility? >> i think it has a tremendous impact. look, there is paperwork that corroborates the people's evidence and that's obviously hurtful for the president. but my understanding is it's not paperwork with donald trump's handwriting on it or his signature on it, except for a check. so the defense could merely be, hey, michael cole did all of this.
elements that will be difficult to sort out, given the current situation in gaza. mr; sort out, given the current situation in gaza. ~ , , ., situation in gaza. my understanding is that the secretary-general - situation in gaza. my understanding is that the secretary-general has i is that the secretary—general has tasked with the commissioner to come up tasked with the commissioner to come up with a detailed plan of action, so we will have to wait and see what that says. a couple of thoughts — one is on transparency, that's mainly in terms of transparency towards the donors, and that's an easy thing to fix, including neutrality violations. secondly, the report clearly outlines you need to have some capacity to manage, in the case of gaza, 13,000 staff and to monitor whether they act in compliance with the un standards and values. so the recommendation there is, there's a couple, but one of them is capacity. the un needs to have good, qualified and trained people to monitor installations in the behaviour of staff.—
like either option, what motivates people to turn out. for many republican core voters, they feel these two new york cases are so frivolous then it's unfair to the political prosecution that it motivates them to turn out. as far as expanding beyond that, the sordid nature doesn't help the former president. the reality of him being seen in this venue is rather diminishing. i think he's used to controlling so much of his own environment even to the extent of camera angles and lighting and the fact he controls none of that in this courtroom i think can be diminishing. so at the end of the day, i don't think it's a net plus for gaining new voters but at the same time, perhaps it energizes some republican voters who perhaps are still on the fence. i think that's a pretty small sliver at this point. >> a lot of these folks who are going to be testifying are people who i think if you have an understanding of the case, each of them fits into the puzzle. they all buttress at least from
in your hearing, understanding that rachel maddow has more of an understanding of this case than the average juror might, but one of the things that many prosecutors have told me over the years is, my job is to go and tell a story that's going to set the stage for the jury to believe and understand why i brought these charges. that simple. >> reporter: yes, and that is absolutely what you saw today from the prosecution. i don't know what the jury will ultimately decide. we don't know how the evidence will be presented. we don't know which side will be compelling in the minds of these 12 new yorkers. when the prosecution got up today, what they said was, without equivocation, without caveat, without parenthetical phrases, they said this was this kind of a crime. this is how we know he did it. this is what we're going to show you about how he did it. there's going to be absolutely no doubt in your mind. it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt in all of your