ials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for.

it is good to be back with you for this second hour of "chris jansing reports." today's testimony in donald trump's hush money trial turned to some of the most critical evidence yet, the invoices, vouchers and checks at the heart of the criminal case against the former president. while it may not have had the same shock value as, for example, stormy daniels testimony, it is setting up the jury for what's expected on monday, testimony from the most highly anticipated witness in this case. donald trump's former fixer, michael cohen, the man who says he paid off the adult film star at trump's direction. the prosecution revealing today that they expect to call one other witness besides cohen. it's entirely possible that they rest by the end of next week. i want to bring in nbc's yasmin vossoughian who's reporting from outside the courthouse in lower manhattan, also with us, former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst, chuck rosenberg. in studio, jessica roth, a

former federal prosecutor for the southern doctor district of new york, and jill, she has known judge merchan for 15 years. chuck, i think today was a good reminder for all of us not just that everything you put down in a text or an e-mail lives forever, but that for all the salacious details in this trial, it is going to come down to what we're calling dry details, those signed checks, how mail got delivered to donald trump, the phone records. how does this set the stage for michael cohen? >> that's right, chris. look, mr. trump is not charged with having sex with stormy daniels. it's largely irrelevant. it provides some of the context, but that's not the crime. the crime is the falsification of books and records. so what a prosecutor would have to show is that the books and records were false, that they were intentionally false, and in this case, that mr. trump directed that. you know, think of it this way, chris. in a bank robbery, the guy

standing in the lobby of the bank with a gun and a mask and a bag of cash is the bank robber. it's not that hard, but if someone is charged with falsifying books and records. let's say someone is charged with filing a false tax return, the defendant would argue there's a whole bunch of people between him and the false return, the bookkeeper didit, the accountant did it, the lawyer did, if my return is false, it's because all of these other people failed me, they were freelancing, and so you need to directly connect mr. trump to the false records if you're going to prove your case to the jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. to your point, chris, all of the other salacious details are, you know, well, salacious, but they don't prove the underlying crime. that's why michael cohen is critical. >> there are things obviously, though, judge, that go to the heart of what did donald trump know, and when did he know it, and putting all of that into

context. so it was interesting told that the judge denied a request by the prosecution to show a clip of donald trump on larry king back in 1999. he was bragging about his knowledge of campaign finance law. this is what they wanted to play. >> how about campaign finance reform? >> i think nobody knows more about campaign finance than i do because i'm the biggest contributor. >> why would the judge say no. you smiled when you heard him say that. >> you look at the picture of donald trump, you see it's a long time ago. so the relevance is therefore going to be, you know, attenuated at best, and he's bragging, that's what he does, quite well, and it doesn't really mean anything. so judges, as a rule, with every decision that's before them, is they balance it. what is the probative value of the evidence. here's there's a prejudicial

effect because the prosecutor wouldn't be asking for it if it wasn't prejudicial. it helps their case. but the probative value is so minimal. >> do you think that a jury would look at that and say donald trump knew what was going on was wrong. he said it himself. >> maybe. i mean, again, it's so remote, and it gives the defense the argument to make the argument i'm making here, but at the end of the day, it is remote, it probably wouldn't have won the day. >> jill, you're smiling and laughing a little bit, or chuckling at least under your breath. what do you make of that, and all of these kinds of decisions that a judge has to make but maybe you'll say you can't blame either a prosecution or a defense for trying? >> well, i think the possible relevance of that clip was to show that trump was familiar with campaign finance law, which goes to sort of was there a crime in making in payment to michael cohen, which was alleged to be an unlawful campaign contribution, and did he know it

would be unlawful. it had minimal probative value. it was so long ago, and he could have been bluffing. if it's offered on the heels of the stormy daniels testimony yesterday, where so much came in, the salacious details about the sexual encounter that didn't go to the heart of the criminal charges here. i think at that point, the judge is particularly keen to make sure he's not going to be admitting things to have a real risk of unfair prejudice when they don't have that much probative value. >> the other thing jurors saw were text messages in 2016 between dylan howard, the editor of the "national enquirer" back then, and gina rodriguez, she was stormy daniels manager, and they were really interesting. what can you tell us? >> this was the reason why they recalled georgia longstreet, right? georgia longstreet, a paralegal in the manhattan d.a.'s office, responsible for gathering the social media, much of the text message exchanges as well.

it was a way to admit the evidence and have the evidence read in a courtroom. the text messages between dylan howard and gina rodriguez beginning in april of that year, 2016, leading up to october 26th of 2016. the final text messages from dylan howard to gina rodriguez saying i have good news, i hear. we have good news, i hear, and i'm paraphrasing here, and essentially the entire exchange over this six-month period, chris, is the back and forth, the negotiations, the leading up to this ultimate $130,000 payoff to stormy daniels even in the final weeks leading up to october 26th in these text messages. they haven't come through on the agreement, on the payout, so they're going with daily mail, their loss, but then subsequently, obviously as we know now, so many years later, why we're here now is the $130,000 did, in fact, come through. it was fascinating to see a

glimpse of this negotiation going between howard and gina rodriguez and wanting to show the jury the lead up to the ultimate payoff. >> so, chuck, where are the glaring holes that the prosecution is expecting, hoping, planning for michael cohen to fill? >> yeah, it's not really a glaring hole, chris. it's an obvious need for proof as i had mentioned earlier. the records were false, they were intentionally false, and they were intentionally false because mr. trump directed them to be. so can cohen connect those three things? can he say credibly, and credible is a very big part of his testimony, and we'll see how that goes, that, i told trump what we were doing, trump approved this. trump told me to handle it this way. trump directed us to call it a

retainer agreement. he direct that had it be done, and, you know, over a period of time with monthly checks. in other words, that trump knew what the scheme was. he understood the goals of it, that he approved of it, and that it all happened on his watch at his direction. that's the gap that the prosecutors need to fill. they know that. they've done some of it inf inf and it's every bit as valid as direct evidence. what they need from mr. cohen is direct evidence. i was there for the conversations with mr. trump. he understood what we were doing, approved of what we were doing and directed what we did. >> we're going to talk more about michael cohen in this hour, but, jessica, there isn't

any indication right now of who the other mystery witness might be. they're acknowledging, probably two more witnesses, could be done at the end of next week. michael cohen and looking at the hole that needs to be filled. any thoughts about who that might be? >> i have been wondering about that because -- >> me too. >> yeah, and i would not want to end on michael cohen if i were the prosecution, so i would want some other substantiative witness after him if i could. but i'm not sure who that would be at this point. i don't know that it's going to be a records custodian. it feels like all the records we need are in evidence. i'm imagining possibly there's some witness to whom he made a prior consistent statement, if that's true, that would be helpful to rehabilitate michael cohen, if he's examined on cross-examination about prior inconsistent statements he's made, and he's made a lot of prior inconsistent statements, where trump had nothing to do

with this. maybe if they're closer to the events in question, yeah, donald trump is in on this, maybe that's somebody who could be corroborative of this. i'm not sure who else that would be. . >> chuck, you want to take a stab at it? >> look, like jessica, i don't know, but i have one other possibility. i think jessica's absolutely right. the government doesn't want to end with michael cohen because that's messy. even if it goes well, it's messy. so maybe, possibly, the last witness is a summary witness, somebody who has a time line or summary charts and who can help pull all of this together. i mean, i've used that as a prosecutor, when you have a lot of paper and a lot of witnesses, and dates and phone calls, and text messages that you can pull it all together through a summary witness, but again, chris, just a guess. >> yasmin, thank you, chuck, jessica and jill stand by.

in 90 seconds we're going to dill into michael cohen's big moment when the former fixer takes the stand. can he cement the case or will his credibility issues stand in the way? stand in the way? for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust. - so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley,

we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? (vo) sail through the heart of historic cities and unforgettable scenery with viking. unpack once and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life and cultural treasures. because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there. viking. exploring the world in comfort. trial, the testimony of trump's former fixer, michael cohen, who sources tell nbc is expected to

take the stand on monday. cohen's name has already been invoked more than 1,500 times at this trial as both sides attempt to shape his character for the jury before he even steps into the courtroom. and just before ending court for the day, judge merchan had a warning for the prosecution, i would direct the people to communicate to mr. cohen that the judge is asking him to refrain from communicating about this case. back with us, chuck rosenberg, jessica roth, and jill conviser. 1,500 mentions of cohen so far, and a lot of it not good. hope hicks said he used to like to call him mr. fix it, but because he first broke it. stormy daniels' former lawyer referred to him as a jerk. take us behind the scenes, give us a sense of how prosecutors may be doing last minute preps with michael cohen right now?

>> it's really interesting to think about what they're going to do with him on direct examination. there's so much that has been said about him through other witnesses as you were mentioning, much of that i would be looking to do on direct, pulling the sting of the things you're going to anticipate on a cross-examination, having the witness own and state up front things that they have done in the past that make them less credible as a witness, perhaps, things about their criminal record, lies they have told in the past. those are the kinds of things that the jury has a sense of through the other witnesses. what i think they're going to be working on with michael cohen is making sure he doesn't appear to be shying away from any of these unsavory aspects of his past. there are things the jury has not heard about with respect to him. they're going to be preparing him to give a direct examination where he is straightforward about all the things he has done in the past, that a jury might find less than fully credible and tell his story that is at the heart of this case, about his dealings with the former president and about stormy

daniels and the payment in a straightforward way. if i were them, i would be trying to get him to say it without the sinkers that he loves to include on social media, to just get the facts out. >> there's also the question of credibility. how does a prosecutor set him up for the jury. he's a convicted liar who turned on trump, and this is given in evidence, turned on him when he didn't get a job in the administration, and who has made money off of his relationship with trump. so how do you even start if you're the prosecutor? >> he's not a good human being, chris, but that's not unusual. as prosecutors we deal with lots of people who are not good human beings. some of them end up testifying for the government in criminal cases. by the way, it's happening today all over the country in state and federal courts everywhere. and jessica alluded to it. what prosecutors have to do is draw the sting. on direct examination, when prosecutors are asking questions, they have to go

through all the sordid details of mr. cohen's life, his conviction, his bias, his lies, because you don't want as a prosecutor for the jury to hear that for the first time from the defense team on cross-examination. look, whether or not it succeeds is going to turn in part on the prosecutors but also in part on mr. cohen. and so even though the jury went home today at 12, the prosecutors did not. i promise you. they went back to their offices, had a quick lunch, if they were lucky, and got to work as they will be doing all weekend, likely rehearsing, prepping with mr. cohen, begging him, as the judge asked to stop making comments outside of court, and getting him ready. but jessica's exactly right. you as the prosecutor induce all of the weaknesses, all of the biases, all of the

inconsistencies in your questioning, drawing the sting for the witness and hopefully showing the jury that flawed and all, they still ought to believe the heart of mr. cohen's testimony that this plot was directed by mr. trump. >> so they both brought this up, judge. this is something who we've all seen on television, including on this network, he is colorful, he is blunt, he often goes far beyond answering the question he is asked. so what's judge merchan's role in all of this, and especially given what we saw with stormy daniels and you saw that he seemed to be frustrated, frankly, to some extent with the defense that they didn't object more? >> well, colorful is one word. certainly. i think you're going to see the judge take a more active role, and i say that for a couple of reasons. one is generally as a judge, you

let the lawyers try their case. they can make strategic decisions about when to object and when not to object. even if a layperson may think they're getting hurt, well, they might have their reasons and you're going to give them some leeway. here, well, with the rapid fire mistrial motions that came thereafter, would leave me to wonder if i'm sitting there on the bench, that maybe i'm getting played a little bit. and so i'm going to take a more active role. i am going to stop anything that is remotely prejudicial, whether the defense wants that or not. if they want to make an argument, judge, this is important to me, then i'll consider it. otherwise, i think you will see merchan pull back the reins a little bit. >> is there a way with the question that the prosecution can rein him in. i assume you don't want to interrupt your own witness. it's one thing to go too far and away that might help your case, but if he starts to go in a another way, you might think

hurts your case. what do you do? >> i think what they want to do are prepare him with questions that are very directed. it's open ended questions. you can't lead your witness on direct examination, but you can ask precise questions, what did he say at that moment. sort of what happened next with respect to x, right, and not give him free reign to talk about the entirety of the day. that would be an extreme. get him to the moments in time that you need him to talk about and the subject that is you need to talk to him about. then if he goes on, you know, and at greater length and detail than what you were trying to elicit, then you might very politely try to interrupt him just to get him back on track or the defense might object or the judge might intercede at that point. >> you have to prepare that witness, sit them down in the office and read them the riot act. this is the way it's going to go. hopefully the witness listens. >> what's the riot act you would read to michael cohen? >> it would take a while, chris,

and i think i would have been doing it repeatedly, and i think i would have met with little success. jessica and the judge are right, i mean, there are times when a -- as a prosecutor, you don't love people who are bad human beings, but sometimes you need them to help establish your case, and if you have to interrupt them in court in front of a jury, and that happens, then you do it. you have to rein them in. if we can build our case with nuns and librarians, we prefer to do that. but nuns and librarians tend not to be around people who commit crimes. >> there are two things, the credibility issue that comes from his past, the other thing is the way he comes off the on the stand, and does he come across as someone, whether or not he's made money off of donald trump, whether or not he's unhappy about the fact that

he didn't get a job in the administration, could his energy, could his knowledge, could his proximity, we're looking at all the possible negatives, what are the possible positives? could he actually win over the jury? >> well, the positive, chris, is, i think, reasonably obvious. he knows stuff. he was there. he was the witness in the room. he had direct access to mr. trump. he was the conduit for the payments. he was the cutout. and so the up sides for the prosecution, i think, are reasonably clear, you just want to talk about upsides. this is the guy who knows. and so you put the guy who knows on the stand. you ask him a whole bunch of questions. you would deduce the bad parts as jessica alluded to, and then you hope the jury believes him. >> everyone stay with me because up next, did prosecutors open themselves up to a possible appeal issue by calling stormy

daniels to the stand. the testimony the prosecution is calling a dog whistle for rape. e (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. deep down, i knew something was wrong. since my fatigue and light-headedness would come and go, i figured it wasn't a big deal. then i saw my doctor and found out i have afib, and that means there's about a 5 times greater risk of stroke. symptoms like irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light- headedness can come and go. but if you have afib,

the risk of stroke is always there. if you have one or more symptoms, get checked out. holding off on seeing a doctor won't change whether or not you have afib. but if you do, making that appointment can help you get ahead of stroke risk. contact a doctor and learn more at notimetowait.com [ doorbell rings ] you must be isaac. come on in. can help you get ahead of stroke risk. [ sighs ] here's my pride and joy. [ romantic music plays ] ♪♪ beautiful stair renovation, sir. and they're covered with your home and auto bundle with progressive, so you get round-the-clock protection. so, is gabby coming down? oh, she said she'll meet you at the prom. with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders

so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley ( ♪♪ ) i thought water would help with these dry spots. that's lawn disease. but scotts healthy plus will cure it! lawn disease? been going around. so like other people have it and it's not... pick up a bag of the new scotts turf builder healthy plus lawn food today. feed your lawn. feed it. all of the things that you're looking for in a pad, that is always discreet. look at how it absorbs all the liquid. oh my gosh! and locking it right on in.

look at that! totally absorbed. i got to get some always discreet. a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month.

plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today! it's a beautiful... ...day to fly. wooooo! the likelihood of an appeal is already hanging over donald trump's hush money trial today, long before testimony ends, and there's even a verdict. at the heart of the defense's second request for a mistrial, was the detailed testimony by stormy daniels that trump's lawyer says was a dog whistle

for rape, since this was never a trial about the alleged sexual encounter, should she have testified at all. chuck rosenberg, and jill are back with me. do you think the prosecution has regrets about her on the stand or is their case stronger today than it was yesterday? >> i think stormy daniels was important for context. some of the salacious details were unnecessary. should mr. trump be convicted, sure they'll raise it, but as the judge will tell you, and probably much more eloquently than me, judges get a lot of discretion when it comes to evidentiary calls in their courtroom because they make hundreds of them in the course of a trial. the standard applied by the appellate court would be whether or not admitting something was

abuse of discretion, and that's a difficult standard for an appellate, somebody bringing an appeal to hit. moreover, as judge merchan said, some of the error, if there was error was invited. the defense had opened the door some of this questioning and a defendant can't complain on appeal that he both opened the door and then suffered the consequences. so i'm not overly worried about this. i would love to hear what the judge said, all the judges out there are smarter than me, but there is an abuse of discretion standard which should help the prosecution should they win a conviction and should this question be raised on appeal. >> well, during the mistrial request yesterday, judge, two statements by judge merchan argued first about susan necheles, why on earth she wouldn't object to the mention of a condom, i don't understand. he said this about todd blanche, blanche opened the door for

testimony about the alleged sexual encounter by telling jurors that daniels' claim was made up. was that in a sense mitigating the risk of an appeal? >> yes, i mean, he's speaking to the appellate division right then. he's saying this is what i'm thinking. if you speak to appellate judges, they say give me something to hang my hat on. >> they don't want to overturn? >> they want to do the right thing, i think. but given an otherwise fairly obtained conviction, you don't want to overturn it. and by judge merchan saying that, he's telegraphing to the appellate division, this is why i did it. the fact that they opened on stormy daniels is a liar is a license for the prosecution to say, well, they're calling my witness a liar, everything she's saying is not true. this encounter never happened, and so the details matter. that's not not compelling. and i think rosenberg is right when he says the standard of

abuse of discretion is high. they didn't object. it is an issue on appeal. that in and of itself i don't think will ruin the day. >> i have to say the phrase dog whistle for rape is charged. many articles were written in the after math of her first day of testimony that talked about that this sounded like nonconsensual sex, even though stormy daniels has never veered from her statement that this was a consensual encounter. nor has he veered from saying it never happened. but in a trial that is not about sex is an appealable offense. because sex is not at the heart of what the jurors are considering. >> right. there's a sense in which these details about the encounter really don't go to the heart of the charges here, but as the judge said, once the defense opened on the position that she was lying, then it became relevant for the prosecution to elicit from her the details of the event, so the jury could

assess their credibility and if a witness has strong recall of the details of an event, that tends to make them more credible to the jury. would it have been better if she had been prepared by the prosecutors not to go into some of these details, including the ones that you alluded to and the judge alluded to. that would have been better. she could have gotten out sufficient detail to be deemed credible, without going into the aspects of the encounter which are the most troublesome ones on appeal potentially. >> let me go back into sort of law school 101, if i can, chuck, what are the usual categories of reversible error? a lot of people have been pointing to the recent case, overturning harvey weinstein's conviction, for example. what should we know about what the consideration would be? >> i mean, if you saw my law school transcript, chris, you would not be asking me questions about law 101, but there's lots of bases on which an appeal can

be taken, and where a defendant can win and get a conviction overturned. faulty jury instructions, improper argument by the prosecutors. but typically judgment calls that a judge makes on the bench during his his or her trial about whether or not to admit evidence, again, under that abuse of discretion standard, that is typically not the basis for overturning a conviction. you mentioned the -- what's the -- harvey weinstein. >> harvey weinstein, yeah. >> his conviction was overturned on appeal. it seems like the judge in that case let in too much prior bad act evidence. jill explained earlier that judges always weigh the probative value of evidence against their prejudicial effect. that balancing becomes particularly acute when prosecutors are trying to

introduce prior bad act evidence that sometimes in the weinstein case, the prosecutors may have gone too far. and the judge may have permitted too much. but typically evidentiary rulings are not the basis for overturning an appeal. by the way, in order to appeal mr. trump would first have to be convicted, and that would be, you know, months, if not years off. so from a prosecutor's perspective, first things first. try your case, do it as cleanly as possible, and try to win your conviction. >> and also, judge, fair to say that cases like this, if there is a conviction, there is going to be an appeal. both sides are going to be very aware of that, if not just possibility, likelihood, and the judge knows it, too. >> i think that's right. i think prosecutors, i've heard it said, i was a prosecutor many years ago, said let's just get the conviction and we'll let the appeals bureau worry about the

appeal. the reference to weinstein, i think is interesting in this case. there are some parallels, but there are some distinct differences. he was on trial for predatory sexual assault and two counts of rape class a and b, violent felony offenses and the judge did let in a series of other acts, including dropping someone off on the side of the highway, and they couldn't get home. throwing a towel, throwing a fit when someone in a hotel didn't give them food. it was just on top of it, there was so much, and interestingly, that decision by our court of appeals was 4-3. so there were three justice that is did not agree that the case should be overturned, so while i don't dispute that ruling, i'm simply saying, i don't think we're in that territory in this case. >> judge jill konviser, it was good for you to come back. the prosecution is in a position to rest its case, they say by the end of next week, will the defense consider

putting donald trump on the stand? we'll talk about it with a former attorney for the trump organization next. p organization next. (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. new herbal essences is packed with naturally derived plant based ingredients your hair will love and none of the stuff it won't. our sulfate free collections smell incredible and leave your hair touchably soft and smooth. new herbal essences.

- so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? breathing claritin clear is like... [♪♪] feeling the breeze instead of feeling congested. [♪♪] fast relief of allergies with nasal congestion, so you can breathe better. claritin plus decongestant. live claritin clear®. ( ♪♪ ) i thought water would help with these dry spots. that's lawn disease. but scotts healthy plus will cure it! lawn disease? been going around. so like other people have it and it's not... pick up a bag of the new scotts turf builder healthy plus lawn food today. feed your lawn. feed it.

here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. (vo) explore the world the viking way from the quiet comfort of elegant small shipsow. with no children and no casinos. we actually have reinvented ocean voyages, designing all-inclusive experiences for the thinking person. viking - voted world's best by both travel + leisure and condé nast traveler. learn more at viking.com. mom genes. she passed them down to you. but who passed them to her? ancestrydna can show her who and where her genes came from.

best of all, it's on sale for mother's day. get it now, before she has to remind you. (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) so we partner with verizon get it now, to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon.

call it baiting or maybe just calling his bluff, but both the prosecutors in donald trump's hush money case and his accuser stormy daniels, are telling trump that if he doesn't believe her testimony, just testify himself.

daniels is as biting on social media as she was on the stand, writing, real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. oh, wait, never mind. >> everybody saw what happened today. i don't think we have to do any explaining. i'm not allowed to anyway because this judge is corrupt. >> of course judge juan merchan has pointed out that trump can indeed explain by taking the stand. the gag order does not prohibit that. but then he would be subject to cross-examination. joining me now, william brennan, defense attorney and former attorney for trump organization, and chuck rosenberg and jessica roth are still with me. william, to testify or not to testify. that is the question. from a defense attorney's perspective and from the perspective of someone who knows donald trump, do you think there are conversations going on between him and his lawyers about the pros and cons of him taking the stand? >> good afternoon, chris.

of course there are, as in any criminal case. the defense lawyers would speak to the client about whether or not he or she wishes to testify because it's really one of about three decisions the client makes on their own, whether or not to plead guilty or have a trial is one, whether or not to have a judge trial or a jury trial, and then whether or not to testify. that's usually the last decision that's made. so that decision probably will not be completely made until the prosecution rests, the defense puts on any evidence it may. the defense doesn't have to put any evidence on, but if they do, if the defendant, in any case, this case included testifies, that is usually the last thing the injury hearings. >> do you see that as a realistic option, that after the prosecution rests, they just say, your honor, we don't believe they have made their case, we're not going to call any witnesses?

>> well, that's a little different from not having a defendant testify. for instance, in federal court at the conclusion of the government's case, defense lawyers make what's known as a rule 29 motion and you basically say, judge, taking all of this evidence in a light most favorable to the government, the government hasn't made out a case. they are routinely denied, you know, by and large, and then the defense can put on a case if it so chooses. there's no obligation under our constitution for the defense to do anything. they can put character witnesses on, they can put fact witnesses on, and then they could decide if the defendant, himself or herself, would decide if they wish to testify. but if the defendant elects not to testify, judge merchan in this case would tell the jury, no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact you didn't hear from the defendant. our constitution guarantees a defendant the right to remain

silent. >> as somebody who knows him and has worked with him, what kind of witness do you think he would be? >> i think he would be a lot better than people are prognosticating. he didn't get this far in life, for four years, he was the most powerful man in the world. he didn't get this far by not being able to handle himself. having said that, i don't care who you are, the defense lawyers are probably sweating his testimony, not because it's him, but i know and i have been trying cases for 35 years, your heart is in your mouth when a defendant testifies because, you know, direct is usually relatively perfunctory and you rehearse it and you know what they're going to say. for us, it's the wild west, anything can happen. >> chuck, not because it's him or maybe because it's him, i mean, let's just start with the idea that no defense attorney wants to be in a case where they

feel, a situation in their case, where they feel they have to put the defendant on the stand. they would like to think they have gotten acquittal, at leas that one juror to have second doubts. what do you think of donald trump on the stand, and i'm trying to imagine him under cross-examination? >> we seem to have lost chuck's mic. we've got you back. go ahead, start again. what would you make of donald trump on the stand? >> my apologies, my dog was barking earlier, and i didn't think you all needed to hear that. in all of the many many cases i tried as a federal prosecutor, it would be extremely rare for a defendant to take the stand. mr. brennan, i think, articulates it well. you can prepare for direct examination, you can prepare a defendant for the questions

you're going to ask. you know what he or she is going to say in response. but there is a lot of folder for cross-examination of mr. trump. just as with mr. cohen. neither of these two gentlemen strike me as particularly good or truthful or consistent human beings. and you can bet that prosecutors from day one, have started what i used to call my cross-examination file. any text, any tweet, any statement. any utterance that mr. trump made that helps my case or under mines his defense, i throw it in that cross-examination file. and so even though defendants rarely if ever take the stand in their own defense, prosecutors are always or should always be ready. i think cross-examination of mr. trump would not go well for him. although the direct examination might. and i think prosecutors in some ways would be looking forward to the opportunity to have mr.

trump under oath. again, mr. brennan's right, absolutely no obligation by a defendant to take the stand. absolutely no burden on the defense to prove their case and the burden of the prosecution never shifts to the defendant, but a defendant taking the stand, it's extremely rare, and when they do, it doesn't tend to go well for them. >> so, jessica, whatever the lawyers think, and they will make their opinions now, it is his money, and it is his life, so ultimately, donald trump will make the decision about whether or not he's going to take the stand. he has said previously that he would. he has been known to change his mind in the past. but he's also someone who believes with frankly, some proof behind him, that he has a way of convincing people of things. as william pointed out, he was the president of the united states. he did win in 2016. so just as chuck is keeping a

cross-examination file, what are you doing as a prosecutor for that possibility that you might have to put your defendant on the stand? >> well, i would be keeping a file as well so that you could do a mock cross-examination of him. now, trump is very difficult to control. i don't know if he would actually sit for a preparation session where they actually did a mock cross, but i would want him, if he was saying he wanted to take the stand, i would want him to sit down and do a mock cross. so he could experience what that would be like and the damage that could be done to his credibility on cross-examination to get across exactly what it is that the lawyers are concerned about. now, he did testify in his own defense in one of the civil e. jean carroll trials and testified at the civil fraud case in state court, brought by the attorney general. and the verdict went against him in both of those cases. and so if i were his lawyer, i would be impressing upon him, although he thinks he's his own best advocate, the last two

times he testified, it didn't go his way. >> there's a lot of reporting and a lot of firsthand information, william, that donald trump is someone you didn't necessarily want to give bad news to, and so, look, if you're president of the united states or head of a corporation, it can be intimidating. we'll acknowledge that, but there's this reporting in the "new york times" about how trump is passing his time in court. they say he likes to read through news clips and social media posts for long stretches, that come to his aid and his trump's other advisers nicknamed her the human printer, so she can produce mood boosting articles for trump to read. we all like to be positive. do you think, a, that makes him look small, but more to the point, do you not want your client to know really what's going on out there or how the trial is being interpreted or

just frankly the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> chris, if your question is, you know, like when i represented him in the second impeachment and then i represented the trump payroll corporation, and the very same courtroom that this trial is being held in, before the same judge, judge merchan, and many of the same prosecutors. and, you know, i was in regular contact with him, and i called balls and called strikes. i called it the way i saw it. if it was bad news in a given day, i gave it to him. if it was good news, i gave them that news too. >> how did he take the bad news, william? >> better than most people. i mean, he was easy to get along with from my perspective, as were the prosecutors and as was judge merchan, i mean, i did have a bad experience. i had no agenda. i wasn't on a political, you know, mission. i was representing somebody

whose corporation had been charged with crimes. i have been doing it a long time, and i try to do it the same in every case. he was not difficult to get along with. >> the stakes are very different but irrespective. chuck rosenberg, jessica roth, and william brennan, thank you. and donald trump re-ups his debate challenge with an unusual suggestion for the venue. keep it right here. on for the ve keep it right here (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon.

with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen)o you won't miss so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. i was stuck. unresolved depression symptoms were in my way. i needed more from my antidepressant. vraylar helped give it a lift. adding vraylar to an antidepressant is clinically proven to help relieve overall depression symptoms better than an antidepressant alone. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts.

antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrolled muscle movements, which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain, and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. stomach and sleep issues, dizziness, increased appetite, and fatigue are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. i didn't have to change my treatment. i just gave it a lift. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save.

i was scared when i was told age and learn how abbvie related macular degeneration could jeopardize my vision. it was hard, but taking preservision was easy. preservision has the exact clinically proven areds 2 formula recommended by the nei. i'm taking control like millions of others. well done, viv. you got the presents, the balloons and the raptor cake. now, how about something to put a smile on your face? aspen dental provides complete, affordable care with dentists and labs in one place plus free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance... and 20% off treatment plans for everyone. quality care at a price worth celebrating. it's one more way aspen dental is in your corner.

a change of scenery tomorrow for former president donald trump. he'll be in wildwood, new jersey, on the campaign trail after spending, of course, most of this week in court. he's also calling for an immediate debate with president biden proposing the white house as a venue. >> i'm ready to go anywhere that you are. we can do it in d.c., even pinpoint the white house or in new york when your radical left fascists are finished with the election interference against your political opponent, me. >> okay, it's not happening at the white house, but let me bring in nbc's vaughn hillyard who is outside the courthouse. for the record, joe biden, the president has said already he would debate, but tell us more about the possibilities of a debate, this challenge, and what donald trump's up to on his off

day from court? >> reporter: right, chris. well, in april, donald trump challenged joe biden to a debate outside of this courthouse. here in may i guess he wants to take it to washington, d.c., and the irony, you could say of this is that there is a presidential candidate who has already directly challenged donald trump to a debate, challenged him to a debate this month at the libertarian convention, that would be rfk jr., but donald trump hasn't taken up that presidential candidate on his offer. we should note typically these debates, the presidential commission don't happen until september or october. so we're still four or five months out from that point. donald trump over the last few months, including at campaign events i have been to, made this an issue, trying to suggest that joe biden is running away from him. it has echoes of 2020, how he called him basement joe, one campaign event a couple of weeks ago, donald trump had an empty debate lectern standing on a stage next to him. joe biden said he would debate him eventually here, and yet, for donald trump, he would much

rather be doing anything than being at trial. you mentioned his campaign event this weekend. donald trump is expecting tens of thousands of individuals on the jersey shore for a campaign rally, literally on the sands of the beach. this is not atypically to go to sates that may not be the easiest states to win. you know, when we're looking at the may and june calendars before the convention. it's not atypical for the nominees to go and visit states that may not be their natural go-tos in the closing months like a wisconsin, michigan or arizona. that is where you see him going and playing to a heavily red area where he believes he can have fun in campaign events and get a lot off his chest. we can expect a lot come out of his trial. >> vaughn hillyard who i don't think has slept all week long. hopefully will get sleep this weekend, we'll see you in court on monday. thank you, vaughn. that's going to do it for us this hour. join us for "chris jansing

reports" every weekday from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. right here on msnbc. jose diaz-balart hosts "katy tur reports" after this short break. r reports" after this short break. efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. why would i use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? i like to do things myself. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. kayak... aaaaaaaahhhh kayak. search one and done. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) jingle: ♪ so we partner with verizon ♪ to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon.

♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪ 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.