good morning. it's 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera, bringing you special coverage alongside my friend and colleague, jose diaz-balart. opening statements set to begin in the first criminal trial of a former president. we'll see both sides in trump's unprecedented hush money case preview the narrative they'll present over the next few weeks. >> up first will be the prosecution, promising never-before-heard details of a sex coverup in the run-up to the 2016 election. trump's defense, aiming to prevent the prosecution witnesses as liars. >> we could see the first prosecution witness today. david pecker, the former ceo of the parent company and publisher of the "national enquirer."

joining us, msnbc's yasmin vossoughian outside the courthouse. temidayo aganga-williams, a former prosecuor and defense attorney caroline pull lisi. >> yasmin, jury instrekss under way right now. what's going on? >> jury instructions under way ahead of opening statements, jose and ana. 45 minutes for the prosecution, 25 minutes for the defense. they're doing that because there's going to be a lot of details, much of a timeline, a lot of dates and they don't want to overwhelm the jury in the opening statements process. judgments made from the bench that i want to talk about with you quickly, first, when it comes to the -- evidence if, in fact, the former president decides to testify, judge juan merchan is allowing six various cases to be decided if donald trump it was. talking about the trump payroll

judgment, the trump civil fraud -- gag orders as well along with e. jean carol assault case and the defamation case. -- a couple more things happening in court this morning. the former president spoke about how challenging it is to campaign. he said he should be in a lot of other places that are not here. take a listen to what he says. >> i'm here and i won't be able to be in pennsylvania and georgia and lots of other places campaigning.

it's very unfair juror number nine returned to court today, worried about media attention. they went into private quarters with the judge along with attorneys from both sides. they had a conversation. they came out. juror number nine is remaining intact. we saw that court was going to go into recess at 2:00 p.m. instead of 12:30 now because of a dental emergency for one of the jurors. it was going to be from 2:00 p.m. because of passover. 2:00 p.m. recess tomorrow as well. 12:30 today. let me lay out what opening statements will look like. the prosecution will paint a story about the final days leading up to the november election, the desperation from the former president to win the election, the release of the "access hollywood" tape. they cannot submit the tape itself or play the tape for the jury, but they can submit the transcript as evidence. they're going to talk about david pecker approaching michael cohen talking about how stormy daniels is going to come forward

with this story, having had sex with donald trump in 2006, which the former president denies, how they paid her $130,000. they'll talk about koog and the catch and kill. and the defense, talking about how michael cohen and stormy daniels have an axe to grind and how donald trump paid his attorney, that's all he did. that's what we're looking to today, guys, as a very big day in this nation's history. >> yasmin, you did a great job laying everything out as far as looking ahead to the opening statements. stand by with us as we bring in our legal analysts. maya, what did you make of the list of the scope that the prosecution could hit with donald trump if he were to take the stand, everything from the civil fraud trial outcome to the e. jean carroll cases to the gag order viegss that have been found in the case of the civil fraud trial. does all of this sound fair game? what does that tell you about how when the judge is viewing this as well as the decision the

defense will have to make? >> it's certainly fair game if donald trump chooses to take the witness stand that we would expect him to say if he were to take the stand like, you know, i just didn't want my wife to know or i didn't do it, i don't have affairs, whatever opens the door, as we say, to the ability of the prosecution to come in and bring the evidence that shows, well, actually you have a pattern of behavior, and actually here is what supports our case. this is exactly why so many of us have said very hard to imagine a scenario -- it can happen. but very hard to imagine a scenario where anybody on donald trump's legal team wants him on that witness stand. there's just too much to attack him with including a whole bunch of things he's said inconsistently over the years. >> caroline, is that unusual for folks that don't have the experience that you all do, for example, on what a trial normally looks like -- is it unusual for the judge to say, if the defendant chooses to take the stand, these are six issues

that can be brought up, that won't be brought up if he doesn't take the stand? >> no, that's exactly why we have the sandoval hearing, to make sure the defendant is properly informed to make that decision, to make the cost-benefit an analysis? >> the hearing was there to inform the former president that if he does choose to take the stand, there are certain issues that he could be questioned on, perhaps that he might not know that he would be questioned on because you might think they're not pertinent or have anything to do with this case. we sometimes call it other bad acts, evidence typically in evidence, that those types of things are not allowed to be asked. this is so the defendant can make an informed decision. typically, jose, you do not see defendants taking the stand. remember, the defense has zero burden in this case. we're talking a lot about the defendant's witness list. it could be zero. they could not even give an

opening statement. they could never stand up or put anybody on the stand, anything at all. it's the prosecution that has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt and there's absolutely no burden on the defense. >> temidayo, jury instructions expected to take about 30 minutes. any surprises so far based on this sandoval outcome and anything else yasmin reported from the court this morning? >> no surprises. it's consistent. judge merchan is going to judge this case in a conservative manner. i think the prosecution asked for 13 bad acts, they're getting six. sometimes it actually can help the prosecution. prosecutors might have the instinct to go more aggressive. you want to crush that defendant. we've all been there. the judge sometimes can limit your case but it strengthens you on appeal. you go too aggressive, an appellate court might say you

undermined the defendant's rights here. i thif it's a good decision for the prosecution even though they didn't get everything they wanted. >> yasmin, there's more on the judge's instructions? >> reporter: there is. let me give you some direct quotes so i can take you inside the courtroom, getting these instructions from judge juan merchan, walking the jury through this process. this is the first time for many jurors sitting inside this jury, and also, of course, the gravity of this case, what it's going to mean for this country, history making as we've been calls it all morning lon. merchan saying, what i say is not evidence. you must decide this case on the evidence. what the lawyers say at any time is not evidence. the defendant is presumed to be innocent. defendant is not required to prove that he is not guilty. one more thing, and this speaks to what you guys were just discussing there. the burden of proof never shifts from the people to the defendant. if they satisfy the burden of proof, you must find him guilty. the law does not require to

prove the case beyond all possible doubt. the proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. unbelievable to think what the jury in this courtroom, guys, is going to hear over the next four to six weeks. we're getting word -- we don't have confirmation in our own reporting on this, but "the new york times" reporting that david pecker is going to be the first witness to take the stand after opening statements. the timing of that we don't know considering it's going to be a short day. david pecker, as you well know, stood over the head of ami for over two-plus decades. he had a meeting with michael cohen back in 2016 talking about the possibility of stormy daniels coming forward. he then visited the white house in 2017 as well. he had a longstanding relationship with the former president. so certainly his testimony is going to be integral to the prosecution's case, guys. >> keep us posted, yasmin. i want to bring in chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney

and senior fbi official. chuck, i'm looking at the jury instructions. one of the things that judge merchan insfrukted the jury this morning is what the lawyers say at any time is not evidence. we're about to hear from the lawyers this morning in their opening statements. both sides had the weekend to prepare. what's the goal of opening statements? >> the opening statement -- and it's not an argument, ana. it's a statement. arguments are prohibited during opening -- is really roadmap from a prosecutor's perspective. he or she will be telling the jury what documents might be admitted, what particular witnesses might say. it's a promise to the jury of what they're about to see. if you were going to a movie, you might watch a trailer. the trailer would tell you what's in the movie. in this case the opening statement is the trailer for the trial. it tells you what you're going to see and hear. from a defense attorney's perspective, they can do a couple of things. caroline made the point earlier

that the defense attorneys don't have to do anything. they don't even have to offer an opening statement. she's 100% right. but if they choose to provide an opening statement, they typically do one of two things. either they ask the jury to keep an open mind and point out how high the burden is to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. or if they choose and plan to put on a case, they can begin to foreshadow that now. they can talk about some of the things they will adduce or some of the witnesses they might call. a little more risk in that strategy for a defense attorney. that don't have to do anything. the burden never shifts to the defense. prosecutors better produce. good defense attorneys like caroline know if a prosecutor promises x and they fail to produce x at trial, they're going to hear about it from caroline in closing.

remember when the prosecutor told you you were going to hear about this particular event or hear from this particular witness? well, you didn't. they failed. they didn't meet their burden. so prosecutors will be careful. they'll be conservative. they'll be chronological and they'll tell the jury in no uncertain terms what it is they hope to produce in the coming trial. >> maya, so many times, to use chuck's analogy, movie trailers are better than the movie. it's important in this specific case that trailer reflects what the movie is as close as possible. how important for the jury are these first impressions? >> they're critical. they're critical in two ways. one, just like a movie trailer, it really is telling the jury what prosecutors want the jury to pay particular attention to. like anything, repetition, repetition, repetition. it means when they go back into

that jury room to deliberate, they have heard multiple times the narrative and the facts that support, or prosecutors are going to say is the intent necessary to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. that's the brass ring here. the business records are important, but the brass ring on the felony conviction is that intent. but there's the other thing which is the likability and believability of the prosecutors themselves. the rapport -- when you've got regular folks sitting in that box, sitting there not as lawyers, not as experts, not as folks with an axe to grind, part of what they're assessing is how much do i trust this lawyer? how much do i believe they have integrity? that's why prosecutors will also in their opening statements say, i'm going to tell you about the witnesses. i'm going to tell you about the weaknesses in their own case.

>> 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

lawyers next. who is representing the former president in this first-of-its-kind criminal trial? >> what are the challenges for the prosecution? we'll talk to someone who has taken on trump in a court of law. >> the political fallout as the 2024 race heats up. >> more special coverage of the former president's first criminal trial after a short break on msnbc. rt break on msnbc type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2,

or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. welcome back. right now the judge is giving jury instructions in donald trump's hush money trial. >> just a few feet away sits trump's defense, led by former prosecutor who worked with d.a. alvin bragg in the past. joining us now, former new york assistant attorney general tristan snell who led the state's investigation into trump university. good to see you.

todd blanche will give the opening for the defense, a former federal prosecutor, white collar defense lawyer. "new york times" notes this will be only his second criminal trial as a defense lawyer. how do you see trump's legal team. >> the key with trump's legal team is they're really there to come up with as many distractions and diversions as humanly possible. i think that's the biggest thing we'll see from them. as folks were saying a moment ago, the prosecution's job is to keep things simple. the defense's job is to try to make them seem as koven confusing as possible. the defense needs to make sure they have at least one juror who can't quite get themselves to think that trump is guilty. >> blanche also previously worked with alvin bragg, the district attorney in this case. tristan, does that give him any kind of edge? >> it would defend on what the

extent of that work experience is. people may work on the same matter and barely know each other. unless we get more details about exactly what they did, if you were going to tell me they were the only two lawyers working a trial together, then that would tell me something, that they might know each other's strengths and weaknesses. these legal cases can be massive and you can literally be working on a matter and not know who the person is. >> the times also notes just a year ago blanche was a democrat, working in a lucrative wall street job. now he's basically moved himself and his family to florida to become a trump lawyer in three of his four criminal cases. why do you think he made such a drastic change? >> you know, people can see career opportunities in very strange ways. the problem with working for donald trump is it's kind of hard to be halfway in. if you work for donald trump, you've got to be all in.

he's constantly on you to be like, are you sticking with me, do you have my back, are you we many? blah, blah, blah. if you leave me, i'll destroy you. that's how he operates. the problem is, if you start working with him a little, he will pull you in. i think that's what's happened. the far right people are fond of pointing to anyone who cares about democracy and the rule of law as having trump derangement syndrome. the real trump derangement syndrome is the people that find themselves sucked into his inner circle. >> let's turn to the prosecution. manhattan d.a. alvin bag made taking on trump a big part of his campaign. a "new york times" profile describes him as nerdy and often appearing to be the most uncomfortable, unmedia savvy public figure who will now face off against the reality television star, former president, master of spin, media ready inults and creation of his

own narrative. the description of him sounds a little different than his public persona. what do you make of his role in this case? >> as i talk about extensively in my book, the key to grinding down trump is to actually be a work horse, not a show horse. the key is to stick to your facts, you evidence, your arguments and keep on working them. out don't necessarily need to be a show horse. i think they're doing a plenty good job getting their message out there in the media about what this indictment is about. i don't think we need to have some other person who is reality show ready, being there to go up against trump. i think what matters is the courtroom, and what matters is convincing those jurors. that's what brag and his team have to do. i don't think there's anything bad here at all about not being showy or being a show horse. out don't need to be a show horse to beat trump.

i think sometimes it gets in the way. you might be going tit-for-tat with who is doing what in the media. stick to your law and you facts and you'll win. that's how anybody who beats trump ends up winning. >> tristan, thank you for being with us. what's happening right now in the manhattan courthouse ahead of opening statements in donald trump's hush money criminal trial. we'll be right back. you're watching msnbc. k. you're watching msnbc. didn't tk i needed swiffer, until, i saw how easily it picked up my hair every time i dried it! only takes a minute. look at that! the heavy duty cloths are extra thick, for amazing trap & lock. even for his hair. wow. and for dust, i love my heavy duty duster. the fluffy fibers trap dust on contact, up high and all around without having to lift a thing. i'm so hooked. you'll love swiffer. or your money back! [coughing] copd isn't pretty. i'm out of breath, and often out of the picture.

but this is my story. ( ♪♪ ) and with once-daily trelegy, it can still be beautiful. because with 3 medicines in 1 inhaler, trelegy keeps my airways open for a full 24 hours and prevents future flare-ups. trelegy also improves lung function, so i can breathe more freely all day and night. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ [laughing] ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for copd because breathing should be beautiful, all day and night. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch because breathing mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year

on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. all on the most reliable 5g mobile network—nationwide. wireless that works for you. for a limited time, ask how to save up to $830 off an eligible 5g phone when you switch to comcast business mobile. don't wait! call, click or visit an xfinity store today. when others divide. we unite. with real solutions to help our kids. like community schools. neighborhood hubs that provide everything from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools. ...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org from chavez and huerta to striking janitors in the 90s to today's fast-food workers. californians have led the way.

now, $20/hour is here. thanks to governor newsom and leaders in sacramento, we can lift workers out of poverty. stop the race to the bottom in the fast-food industry. and build a california for all of us. thank you governor and our california lawmakers for fighting for what matters. 23 past the hour. right now judge merchan is working through jury instructions. >> opening statements will begin soon, as soon as those jury instructions are wrapped up. let's bring in nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard who is outside the courthouse and back with us. chuck rosenberg, maya whyly, temidayo aganga-williams and caroline polisi. >> reporter: good morning, guys. jury instructions are continuing

here. judge merchan just read to them, quote, you are responsible for the final decision and just informed formally jury number one that he is going to be the foreperson, leading those conversations among the jurors and the alternates. this is a moment here where we await opening statements, and after that, likely the first witness, david pecker, the former publisher of the "national enquirer" to take the stand. what's so compelling about david pecker who was a one-time friend of donald trump and who the prosecution intends to present to the jury as an individual who concocted this plan with michael cohen and donald trump at trump tower in august of 2015, the fact he hasn't spoken publicly throughout all the years about what unfolded. he worked with federal prosecutors a and state prosecutors providing testimony and evidence, but it is still not clear exactly what he has to offer to the district attorney's office. we should note that david pecker and american media incorporated

which he was the ceo of at the time were granted immunity, a non-prosecution agreement back in 2018 when federal investigators were looking at michael cohen, charged michael cohen and ultimately sentenced michael cohen for the cooperation of the likes of david pecker. pecker has cooperated with investigators, and this is why today's testimony, the first time the public inside the courtroom will be able to hear from pecker himself, is going to be so crucial. the question here is with court getting out at 12:30 today, just how far into the testimony will the prosecution actually be able to get into its questioning of the former publisher of the "national enquirer." >> tell diya, as we look at what juan merchan is telling the jury, there are entering aspects for someone who doesn't do this on a daily basis. telling the jurors do not read or listen to any accounts of this case on the radio or the internet, do not do research at a library or the internet or any

other news source. you must not google anything about the case or the people involved in the case. these are kind of some difficult things to ask anybody when you're leaving in this 24/7 world of this case. i'm just wondering, the prosecution has about 40 minutes -- announced about 40 minutes of opening statements, and the defense will have about 25 minutes they're saying. in that period of time, how do you put in all that you want to put in for a jury? >> you don't have to put it all. you'll have the opportunity to have the entire trial and tell your full story. there's a prosecutor's saying of slim to win. you want to have a slim, streamline case. i think the prosecutors will come in and let them know this is a pretty simple case. the evidence will show -- that's a line prosecutors say, the evidence will show. all you're doing is setting expectations. the most important thing you have to do in a trial is meet

expectations. when i do my opening statement, i want to tell them the baseline of what i can do to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. later on in the trial my goal will be to exceed expectations. i want to stand up in closing arguments and say i did all the things i said i would do. here are additional things you didn't even see coming, that i blew this stuff out of the park. i think 40 minutes may seem short. yes, this case has some complicated parts, but the prosecutors will put this out as a streamline narrative. i think 40 minutes will be enough time to set the stage for their case. >> as far as defense strategy, caroline, we know that michael cohen's credibility as a witness is expected to be targeted by the defense. but would they do that in opening statements? >> yeah. they absolutely could. they could say listen carefully to the witnesses that the prosecution puts on the stand. listen to how they've changed their stories. stormy daniels, i think they'll likely go to her changing her

story a number of times. the prosecution is going to present sort of an upside down pyramid here. they're going to go big. that's why they're starting with pecker. they're setting the stage with this scheme they're calling it. as a defense attorney, i feel the need to inform everybody the catch-and-kill process is not illegal. the act in and of itself of keeping information from the public in this manner is not illegal. what is being alleged which is illegal is the way they went about accounting for it, and that it was a campaign contribution above the limit for reporting purposes for the federal election commission. i think the prosecution, again, is going to try to paint this picture of things being generally bad in this area. then they're going to hit the documents, the specific pay stubs and the checks and things like that. >> we understand the opening statements have begun. matthew coangelo is saying good morning to everybody there.

maya, juries change. they get in as individuals, right? they come into that room as individuals, but they have to act as a group. what kind of change are you looking for as a defense lawyer or as a prosecution on those 12 people? >> we are starting at the beginning of the trial. you're really trying to -- you're looking for the non-verbal cues, the slight nod. where they're paying attention, i got them. where they're doing a little side eye like, that don't sound right, that's the cue you're looking for. >> very subtle. >> it's very subtle. caroline said it. it's the psychology. you're looking for the psychological cues about where they are, and whether those cues are changing over time, whether you have a particular person that looks like they're remaining skeptical.

who looks like the person who ask going, oh, yeah, i'm feeling this. this is making sense to me. you're always trying to figure out how you're bringing both of those together but also who is going to be influencing who. you know who the foreman is going to be. that telling you something about who is going to be marshalling, trying to get them to agreement. so much of this is about understanding people and looking and seeing how they're responding. >> let's go back to vaughn. opening statements have begun starting with the prosecution. vaughn, bring us that first message the jurors are hearing from the district attorney's office. >> reporter: at 10:27 a.m. eastern time on this monday, opening statements began with the prosecution. prosecute erma thank you coangelo, this case is about criminal conspiracy, donald trump to -- donald trump lied in

his new york business records over and over and over again. what matthew kol anglo, the prosecutor, is presenting to this jury is a case that begins in the summer of 2015 when he lays out that david pecker was invited to trump tower along with michael cohen. at that meeting, those three men formed a conspiracy. prosecutor lays out that michael cohen ultimately paid $130,000 to stnls to silence her and make sure the public did not learn about the sexual encounter. he made the payment at the direction of the defendant, donald trump who paid him back through a series of checks and reimbursement in 2017. so this for the first time inside of this courtroom, the words have been spoken to the jury that donald trump, the defendant, had ordered for $130,000, payment to be made to

stormy daniels. the prosecution from district attorney alvin bag's office is beginning to make the case of a conspiracy all at the direction of the then candidate for president of the united states in 2015, one that would go well into 2016 and into the days leading up to the 2016 election. >> chuck, the importance for the prosecution of repeating what exactly the charges are and the words criminal conspiracy, that i just see in the first five minutes have been repeated a number of times by the prosecution. how do you see this going forward, chuck? >> i don't mean this as a criticism at all, jose. this type of opening is entirely predictable. this is exactly what you would expect a good prosecuor to tell a jury at the outset. you would pick a team. this is about a conspiracy to cover up a relationship and in order to effectuate that conspiracy, to make it work, you

had to lie on your books and records, you had to falsify those records, and that's a crime. so picking a theme, sticking to a 'em that, keeping it simple. these are all standard prosecutorial tools. now, whether or not it works, that's not going to turn on the opening statement. that's going to turn, of course, on the evidence introduced at trial. this is precisely how prosecutors do it. i was a prosecutor for a long time. i tried dozens of cases. i would love to think i won most of those cases because of advocacy. that's not true. you win a case or lose a case in a court of law because you have evidence. so the opening statement is only a preview of that. the evidence will be what matters the most. >> right now we're reading from this document and the reporting coming out of the courtroom that colangelo presenting the opening statement, is actually reading from part of the indictment to the jury.

remember, it was a grand jury that indicted donald trump in this case. and in this indictment he is quoting the first count the grand jury accuses the defendant of falsifying business records in the first degree. the defendant on or about february 14, 2017, attempted to defraud and conceal another crime by falsifying business records of an enterprise. the remaining 33 counts in this indictment count each monthly payment and invoice falsely describing a request for legal services, falsely describing the payment as one for legal services, also falsely describing the nature of the payment. 11 falsified invoices, 11 falsified ledger entries and 12 falsified checks. temidayo, they're jumping right into the details. what stands out to you from how the prosecution is framing all this, the narrative they are creating right now. >> i think they're doing exactly what caroline said, about the upside down pyramid. they started broad and they're

getting specific. at the end of the day, when the jurors deliberate, they'll have to go through each of these 34 counts and have to take a vote and say do we all agree beyond a reasonable doubt they've met their burden. the prosecution can't get away from these details. that is the case. i think it's great they're putting it right up front. the jurors have to understand that. if they prove the case, they have to find them guilty. >> why do you think they're reading from the indictment? >> well, i think, one, it's already been language that they've all agreed upon on how to describe this case. in an opening statement you have to be careful not getting into argument. it helps you from going beyond your skis, as the phrase goes. this is language that the judge and the defense can't object to you putting forward. now, in another way if you're describing it in a way outside of that, you could get into trouble. you may not be accurate.

you may be getting into the role of describing what the law is which is the judge's province. it's safe to refer back to the indictment to go to the charges the jurors will be voting on. >> vaughn, the jurors have already heard about david pecker early on. >> reporter: so early on. this really is the initial meeting just two months after donald trump announced his candidacy as he was rising in the polls in august 2015, the meeting between david pecker, michael cohen and drop, where they concocted a scheme to try to silence stories like drop's alleged affairs. i also want to emphasize the point that the prosecutors started off with explicit statement that donald trump directed the $130,000 payment to michael cohen. this hits at the heart of the extent to which donald trump was aware before the 2016 election and even as he was reimbursing michael cohen in 2017 about what

he knew and where he knew his money was going. the folks will recall, when it comes to stormy daniels specifically, in january of 2018 is when the "wall street journal" first broke the story of the stormy daniels-michael cohen arrangement. again, that was january 2018 after the reimbursement checks had been made. fast forward, four months later, in april of 2018 donald trump was finally asked about that $130,000. i want to read you -- he was on air force one when a reporter asked did you know about the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels. trump replied no. when asked again, he added on, quote, you'll have to ask michael cohen. michael is my attorney. you'll have to ask michael. already the prosecution is prepared to make the case to this jury that donald trump had instructed this payment to go forward, something that donald trump months after the story broke actively denied in public.

so this already is hitting at the core of questioning donald trump's credibility in the mind of the jury. >> i'm quoting the prosecutor here. he says to the jury, cohen's job was to take care of problems for the defendant. he was trump's fixer. together they conspired to influence v fluns the outcome of the election and pecker would ability as eyes and ears for the defendant and gather information that could be harmful and report that to cohen so trump could -- there's a dot, dot, dot, as people are trying to fill in the blanks here. what stands out to me, maya, how they're introducing all the characters that they will soon hear from, the jury will soon hear from. david pecker is somebody they're emphasizing early on. we've reported he's expected to be the first witness called by the prosecution. why would they start with him? why would he be the opening witness? >> because this is the movie trailer. central to the plot of this

movie is conspiracy, in layman's terms, the agreement. the judge has already said to prospective jurors, this is about an agreement to conceal. the agreement begins with david pecker in august of 2015. that's the meeting, and donald trump is in the meeting. you have that top of the pyramid that caroline described, that temidayo so accurately discussed in terms of funneling down. that is the base. the agreement that says i'm going to help you win, and i'm going to help you win by ensuring bad stuff does not get out there on you. remember, there's another thing that we heard when there was the evidentiary fight which is whether or not the prosecution was going to be able to introduce evidence that showed that david pecker and his team were also overemphasizing attacks on opponents. that's going to potentially come

in and be more evidence of this agreement. there's just going to be a cascading waterfall i think of what we might learn that prosecutors had that we have not seen out in the public. it's all going to start and end with david pecker. >> interesting, they also have the responsibility and they're doing that, the prosecution, to bring in an explanation for a lot of these terms that maybe people don't hear, catch and kill, what that means. also, just where does the legal aspect of, for example, you said it a little while ago, catch and kill in concept is not illegal. who does that fall to? the responsibility of defining first what catch and kill is, but then the legality of it. >> catch and kill is not illegal. i think it's really interesting that the prosecution is hitting hard on this conspiracy. a conspiracy has not been charged in this case.

they're getting deep at the underpinnings of the second crime. remember, this is 34 originally misdemeanor counts of false kaigs case of business records, bumped up to a felony because the prosecution needs to prove not only did donald trump sign those checks or do the falsification with, one, an intent to defraud, but two a separate intent to, in this case it's conceal, a previous crime which is, we're calling it election interference. it's really campaign finance law violation. the prosecution has sought to elevate their language surrounding how they are describing this case. it's going to be the defense's job to pick that apart and break it down. the defense in one of those motions in limine made an argument not to use the phrase catch and kill. they didn't win. they thought it was too prejudicial. oftentimes i think it's misleading when we talk about a scheme to suppress negative information, a catch-and-kill

scheme. we think it's illegal. it's not. the "national enquirer," that's their business model. they've been doing catch and kill for a long time. the issue here again is how the trump campaign or trump himself and the organization went about documenting it and whether or not the issue is going to be was this really a campaign contribution? how old it have been? should the mon any have been reimbursed to michael cohen through trump campaign funds. if you follow the logic of the case, that's essentially what the d.a. is saying. >> temidayo, we've been told that the prosecution throughout the course of this trial will present a lot of detail that hasn't been made public. we've gotten a lot of the details from michael cohen himself related to these payments. in fact, michael cohen went to jail for his role in the payments. how much of his legal history related to that federal case in

which he had to pay time for will be central to this case against donald trump. >> i think michael cohen is likely to be a wash here, in that he's going to put in a lot of good evidence for the prosecution and really serve as a narrator, but he's going to be cross-examined aggressively. they're going to go after him, his credibility, his motives here, the fact that he has a book called "revenge." they'll likely him being a pivotal witness is unlikely. he's going to be a narrator. with jurors, you're not just telling a broad story. you have to meet each element. every time, what would a reasonable person think in looking at this? what would be the reasonable question they would have about a piece of evidence? what would be expected corroboration. it's in those details, those small witnesses that corroborate, not necessarily what happened, but just that somebody was in the building.

sometimes it's as simple as i came in and served them coffee and i knew donald trump was there with david becker and michael cohen. i don't know what they said but i knew the meeting happened because i keep their diaries. these are the kind of details we may not know but prosecutors will use to tell the broad story that serve as corroboration, corroboration, corroboration. >> how important is it, chuck, that that person that is weaving this story that has to hold up through weeks of testimony, how important is it that that story they tell now in this first phase be told eloquently but also in a simple way so that people can understand it? >> it has to be told linearly, chronologically. i think the key is to make it simple but avoid the simplistic. this is not an overly complex case. the conspiracy, and i take

caroline's point that they didn't charge them, conspiracy is nevertheless the agreement to do something the law forbids. it did don't on for decades. it was a relatively short period of time. there's 34 counts, but there's really a much more limited number of acts that led to those 34 false documents. so prosecutors have to make it simple, avoid the simplistic, keep it linear and chronological, not overpromise and make sure they have a witness that will back up everything they say in the opening. this is not an inordinately complex thing to do. i forget who made the point earlier, but they're exactly right. i think it was maya. if there's a weakness in your case, you front it. you want do make sure that the jury hears from you, the prosecutor, where the weaknesses are, where the traps may be. otherwise then the defense gets to tell them and it looks like you as the prosecutor is hiding something. it's not an inordinately complex

trial. by the way, jose, i never refer to it as a prosecutor as a story. stories are fiction. this is fact. >> let's go back to vaughn because, vaughn, the jurors are hearing about another person who could be an important character in all of this, potential witness for the prosecution. fill us in. >> reporter: karen mcdougal, a former playboy model who is alleged to have had a ten-month affair with donald trump. she was paid in 2016 as well $150,000 to keep her story silent as part of this alleged catch-and-kill scheme. she was paid directly by ami, which david pecker was the head of. karen mcdougal's story is different from stormy daniels because donald trump nor michael cohen ever actually reimbursed karen mcdougal -- i should say ami for that $150,000 payment.

mcdougal's story is important because it shows this was a part of a greater conspiracy, a greater scheme that extended beyond just stormy daniels. i also want to give everybody a little color of what is happening inside right now as this opening statement from the prosecution continues. we're expecting it to last about 40 minutes. donald trump is actively writing on pieces of paper per our laura jarrett and katie phang and passing them to two of his attorneys, one who is reading them and putting them in his jacket pocket. they're preparing to deliver their opening statements right after the prosecution concludes here. but also inside of the courtroom, alvin bragg is sitting in the first row, the district attorney. he was not in the courtroom during jury selection. trump's seen your aide, jason miller is also inside the room. our laura jarrett also explains matthew colangelo, explaining

confidently, relaxed, hands in pockets. he knows the facts. trump, meanwhile, sitting virtually emotionless as prosecutors begin these opening statements. this is just the beginning for donald trump. he's hearing for the first time exactly what this prosecution intends to bring forward to the jury and the types of witnesses he can anticipate hearing from in the days and weeks ahead. >> maya, what do you think colangelo's most important point in his mind is right now? >> i think it's pattern, pattern, pattern. pattern of behavior, that's what we're hearing from vaughn. what he's really trying to say is, when all is said and done and you have all these facts and evidence, you have to decide whether donald trump had the

intent, the intent to conceal to further his election. i want you to remember all these patterns. because you're not necessarily going to have that person who says donald trump told me explicitly that he wanted to make sure he won. it's not going to be that direct, right? it's going to be time as a witness. it's going to be the meetings, all the phone calls that show that donald trump was in this and he was in this to win this and that this was the election, not his relationship with his wife or anything else that defense attorneys might try to suggest as holes in the theories of the case. that's why all this matters. it's really painting the picture. that trailer is a set of pictures. you want the jury to see the same picture over and pictures, you want the jury to see the same picture over and over again. this is a guy who didn't want the public to know the truth about him so he could win. >> a mentioning of bringing up your case's weaknesses before

the jury, right? so as the prosecution's giving his opening statement, how is he going about saying these are some areas where maybe you would find weakness but still projecting confidence? >> yeah, you know, one way i would do that when i was a prosecutor might be with a troubled witness. so with a michael cohen style witness, you don't run from the fact that michael cohen is michael cohen and you don't run from the fact that he has a shady past. you don't run from the fact that this guy is not a saint. what you do is repackage that. you might tell the jury, you're going to hear from michael cohen, and you're going to hear that he hasn't always been honest. or you might hear something to kind of front that. you frame it as we didn't choose michael cohen. you know who chose michael cohen, the defendant, donald trump. michael cohen is exactly the kind of guy this you hire to do this kind of scheme, and you frame a weakness and try to fit it back into your broader narrative, that's what i would expect the prosecution to do here. >> there's a point here, i'd like to ask vaughn about that.

in the access hollywood tape to the jury, he said he didn't know he was on -- and he's also mentioning hope hicks, so these are some of the characters that we will be -- and incidents that we'll be hearing, even though the video is not going to be shown, but the transcript is available. >> yeah, everybody please stay close. i want to bring into the conversation here robert gibbs. he is a former obama administration aide as well as matthew dowd who is with us right now as well. robert gibbs, is former press secretary in the white house and matthew dowd worked in the bush/cheney administration. matthew, let me start with you. take us back to 2016. that is what the prosecutor is doing right now before the jurors, and just the setting of what they're calling this conspiracy to conceal, this information from the voters, what do you think this -- this was -- what was happening inside

the trump campaign at the time that all of this was reportedly going on behind the scenes? >> well, i can't speak from experience of having gone through a candidate with this, and i don't think robert can either, having this sort of negative associated with a candidate. we had other things we had to deal with, never something like this and never catch and kill and all those other things that are associated with this. my guess is -- this is a guess, by i think it's pretty informed -- is there was so much incoming, the access hollywood tape, and donald trump and his campaign's worry in a very close election against hillary clinton that this could have been meaningful. it probably would have been meaningful. my guess is that election is so close, this would have changed enough minds or demotivated people on the republican side that it would have made a difference in the election so they made a calculated effort, and we'll find out if it was

illegal or legal on whether or not he's convicted by a jury. they made a calculated effort to seek to hide information so they could win the election so it wouldn't come out. that is i'm sure what the calculus was. >> robert, just wondering your thoughts, the very few political candidates are 100% pure without any kind of issues, very few. but in this case, robert, there was a lot to the catch and kill plan. especially after the access hollywood tape. what do you think this would have influenced? >> well, i think matthew hit it on the head. i mean, look, every campaign starts knowing that you've got vulnerabilities, and you have a research department that documents those vulnerabilities. they may be bad votes. they may be bad loans. you may look at your opponent and say, oh, they found out they

didn't pay their property taxes on time. nothing of course rises to the level of what is described and what has happened here, but i think matthew's right in that this is going to -- would have really depressed republican votes just at the point in which you are trying to turn out your base of supporters to make sure they vote, and i think just a few thousand in a few states would have tipped this election. they probably talked to people about the impact of what this would have undoubtedly throughout the campaign and have a plan to make sure it simply didn't come out so that those evangelical voters or whatnot that saw donald trump as their candidate didn't get depressed in not voting right at election day. >> thank you so much, matthew dowd and robert gibbs. let's go back to our vaughn hillyard again at the courthouse with more reporting from inside the courtroom during opening statements. vaughn, fill us in.

>> reporter: again, there are a lot of big question marks, exactly what the prosecution was going to try to argue about donald trump's knowledge ahead of the 2016 election about the payment to stormy daniels, and we can tell you now based off of prosecutor matthew ka lang low opening statements inside of the courtroom literally in the last 60 seconds, he directly says that michael cohen had discussed with trump the stormy daniels story, in october of 2016 and that those conversations led to donald trump being frustrated and acknowledging that he did not want the story to come out, that it would be devastating to his campaign. for timing purposes, this was just days after the access hollywood tape came out in 2016 when of course there were republican allies, the rnc that were concerned about donald trump going on to be the nominee over the course of that month.

and donald trump with the prosecutors are looking to outline to the jury is that he was made aware from michael cohen and the editor in chief of the "national enquirer" that an additional woman, stormy daniels had a story that she wanted to be published and sell, and the "national enquirer" was in discussions with stormy daniels about potentially being the one to buy her story. but in the intervening days, the prosecution says, that michael cohen was put in touch via the national inquirer with stormy daniels and her attorney, and that is when the $130,000 payment was arranged. we want to be very clear what is significant in the last two minutes about this is is that the prosecution is explicitly telling the jury they will present to them in the upcoming weeks that donald trump was intimately aware of the stormy daniels story in october of 2016 and the payment to silence her from having that story go public. >> vaughn hillyard, thank you very much.

everyone, please stay with us. coming up in our next hour, the defense is about to get their opportunity to make opening statements. >> we'll have much more on our special coverage after a short break. don't go anywhere. bladder leak underwear has one job. i just want to feel protected! especially for those sudden gush moments. always discreet protects like no other. with a rapid dry core that locks in your heaviest gush quickly for up to zero leaks. always discreet- the protection we deserve! with the freestyle libre 3 system know your glucose levels. no fingersticks needed. all with the world's smallest and thinnest sensor. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. try it for free at freestylelibre.us ah, these bills are crazy. she

has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm josé diaz-balart alongside my colleague, ana cabrera. right now another historic day unfolding here in manhattan. >> where opening statements are now underway in the first criminal trial of a former president. the prosecution is now introducing its case to the 12 jurors who will ultimately determine donald trump's fate followed by the defense. >> the case focusing on payments donald trump allegedly made to cover up a sexual encount we are an adult film actress, which he denies, along all of the charges against him. with us to talk more about it, vaughn hillyard outside the

courthouse in lower manhattan. our legal panel is back, chuck rosenberg and caroline polisi. >> let's start with vaughn, bring us up to speed on what's been happening in court so far. >> reporter: we're a little bit more than half an hour into opening statements from the prosecution. they've indicated that they intended to spend about 40 minutes presenting their case here as part of their opening statements to the jury, and the biggest significance of the last five minutes is the fact that the prosecution is telling the jury that donald trump was aware in october 2016 of the arrangements to pay stormy daniels $130,000, and it is quite -- if we may take a step back for a moment, it is amazing that almost nine years later we are still learning details of what exactly took place in 2016. these details are clearly going to be presented by the prosecution with a litany of witnesses and evidence, but i

want to be clear, what we have not heard from prosecutors really until now is these specifics that michael cohen had conversations with donald trump in the days after the access hollywood tape when he was made aware of stormy daniels' allegations and her desire to come forward. he then engaged with donald trump, according to the prosecutors about how to silence her story. and that for several weeks after agreeing to all by pay her auch off with a certain amount of money, they tried to go several weeks the prosecutors lay out from actually paying her, and that is when stormy daniels according to prosecutors became frustrated with the delay. just two weeks before the election, michael cohen made two phone calls to donald trump on october the 26th, and the prosecution says that cohen called the defendant and then ended up crossing the street to a bank and opened a new account,

and that very day, the next day, he wired $130,000 to stormy daniels' lawyer in what the prosecution is outlining is that this was at the direction of donald trump, an effort by michael cohen to conspire to influence the 2016 election. again, i say all of this is significant because donald trump, if you go all the way back to 2018 and ever since, he has obfuscated on his answer. but he back in 2018 after the initial story broke of the stormy daniels and michael cohen, $130,000 arrangement, in april of 2018 donald trump was denying he was aware of it and instead said that would have been a michael cohen thing. now what the prosecution is laying out in a clear time line is that they intend to present to the jury evidence and testimony that disputes that and that, in fact, donald trump was at the core of ordering this and coordinating the effort to silence stormy daniels and therefore, the reimbursement

checks he made to michael cohen in 2017, he had full knowledge of what he was paying michael cohen for. >> maya, the importance for the prosecution of bringing the jurors back to that 2016, what was happenings and why that's so important. >> so, so important because they have to show intent, right? that's the agreement to conceal with the intent to unlawfully interfere in the election. that's their case, and it was october 7th, 2016 that access hollywood comes out. the very next day, donald trump, cohen, michael cohen and hope hicks are on a call together. i mean, the proximity to that and what we know that michael cohen's going to say about being directed and what he was directed to do from the beginning, that's why all of these things and then october 26th, this is the donald trump

is directing this. he knows that he's directing it. that's the inference they're saying the evidence is going to demonstrate, and this is why i keep saying time is a witness because it's also the proximity and time, that point about right after two calls with donald trump, then michael cohen goes across the street and opens a bank account? and oh, by the way, you're going to have a transcript of an audio tape where they're actually talking about how michael cohen is setting this up. all of this both helps to corroborate the points that we know michael cohen is probably going to make but it's also to say look at all of this together and you can't stay away from the fact that donald trump is directly in this. that's what the prosecution is saying to the jury. >> and going back to intent, another key line from this opening statement by the prosecution is, quote, it was election fraud pure and simple,

and colangelo promising that the jurors will see evidence of just how concerned trump's campaign was about this story getting out there before the election. in fact, it sounded like davidson and pecker were in communications, a couple of the key players involved in this hush money scheme as alleged by the prosecution that davidson texted pecker on election night, quote, what have we done. what's your reaction to that? >> you know, i think it's interesting. i would have expected it almost working in reverse order here. what's odd about this crime -- well, not odd, but kind of the core crime we're going to be focused on happens first, which is the election interference, and it's months later where we kind of get to the boring documents here. i think what's interesting is that they're basically proving up this core election interference claim which has to do with '15 and '16 and the

campaign and all these things, and we haven't gotten to yet what's on the piece of paper? what's on the documents? why does it say legal services? what's interesting is that's not as fascinating for a jury. you have to prove up this whole secondary narrative and then later on we're going to get to those boring documents. i think if you lock the jury into that first story and they believe that donald trump was directing and overseeing this conspiracy to interfere with the election, when you get to those documents, it's a lot easier for a jury see why those documents say what they say. those 34 counts can almost become a box checking exercise if you believe that initial experience about that the election. i think that's why we're seeing it in this order. >> vaughn, a familiar name the prosecution just mentioned, allen weisselberg who is not going to be testifying but is one they just brought up. >> reporter: allen weisselberg was the chief financial officer for the trump organization, and folks will recall literally two weeks ago we were standing at

this very courthouse when he went and pled guilty to perjury charges stemming from his testimony last year in the civil fraud trial. now, he is currently serving several months in jail at rikers here in new york. and allen weisselberg is somebody who previously served prison time as part of the tax scheme through the trump organization. but allen weisselberg has never testified against specifically donald trump. largely that is what has led him to spending time at rikers and what is notable about weisselberg is the fact that we do not expect him to come forward as a testament either in the defense of donald trump or at the behest of the prosecution because, number one, there were questions about what allen weisselberg would actually testify to, and specifically, this is in the district attorney's interests to not have him testify because michael cohen is alleging that allen weisselberg was the other

individual who he had discussed the exact specifics of the reimbursement plan for the stormy daniels payment. so essentially they're going to be able to present to the jury michael cohen's story of his conversation with allen weisselberg and how in 2017 he would be reimbursed $35,000 checks for the payment that he was personally making of $130,000. michael cohen is also going to testify that the amount that he was reimbursed was actually more than doubled, which hits at the heart of the prosecution's argument to the jury that this shows just how important it was to donald trump to cover this up, and so allen weisselberg is the other individual who michael cohen says was involved in that conversation, but because allen weisselberg is at rikers and unwilling to testify as a witness, this is hitting at the heart of an issue for the defense team for donald trump here and one that the district

attorney's office is less concerned about the waters being muddy in front of the jury over this particular debate over the reimbursement plan for the stormy daniels payment. >> okay, so caroline, we've now been introduced to michael weisselberg. we've been -- allen weisselberg, excuse me, they've talked about michael cohen. they've talked about keith davidson, stormy daniels' attorney at the time. >> hope hicks. >> hope hicks. lotss of names. this sounds like a lot if you are the jury to be trying to understand, to wrap your head around, who did what, who was in which position? >> yeah. >> do you think doing a good job, is this how you would approach it? >> look, they're setting the stage, and with respect to weisselberg, talk about somebody -- this man has given up his whole life in service to trump, right? there is apparently reporting evidence that there are notations that weisselberg made doing the math in terms of how

to repay cohen, you know, this $130,000 as vaughn noted. they actually ended up paying him more than double, plus a $60,000 bonus, i believe it was, so that he could comply with the tax laws because they knew that he would -- the tax authorities would be taking 50% of that. this goes to another really interesting point. the state has put forth three different theories for that secondary crime. we've been talking about the election law violation, election interference but one of them is also tax fraud, and it's a really interesting theory on the tax fraud is that they bent over backwards actually to -- up to the amount. you know, they weren't trying to take money away from the state of new york. they actually jumped through hoops to make sure that cohen -- that the new york state tax authorities would get their due as well. >> talking about cohen, the prosecution there and maya you were saying about bringing up the weaknesses of your case early on, chuck, colangelo was

just mentioning michael cohen, and he says that you will learn and we will be very upfront about the fact that michael cohen like other witnesses in this trial has made mistakes in his past. >> yeah, not just mistakes, jose. i mean, michael cohen is a criminal, and michael cohen is a liar, but the government didn't select michael cohen as a witness. donald trump did, and they're kind of stuck with him. you know, not to be too cute, but if all of my witnesses at all of my trials could have been nuns and librarians, that would have been wonderful, but that's not who you find committing crimes by and large. so michael cohen is there because donald trump had confidence in him that he could use cohen to make a hush money payment. hush money payments aren't unlawful in and of themselves. but it was because of those

payments that trump ended up directing that his books and records be doctored. so yeah, these are the witnesses you get in trials. you know, it's interesting to me, jose, if this trial in some ways is unique because it's the former president as a defendant, and in other ways, it's extraordinarily ordinary, right? these are how openings are done. this is how evidence is deduced, this is how and why the witnesses are ccalled. you can walk into any courtroom in america and hear the judge charge the jury with these sort of instructions before their opening statements and then you would hear these sorts of opening statements and you would see these sorts of witnesses in almost any criminal trial. what's different here is donald trump is the defendant. >> joining us now is former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst, barbara mcquaid. they're obviously trying to get ahead of potential credibility questions around michael cohen, and colangelo saying cohen's

testimony will be backed up by other witnesses you will hear from including david pecker and keith davidson. it will be backed up by emails, text messages, phone logs, business documents, and it will be backed up by donald trump's own words on tape and social media posts, in his own books and in videos of his own speeches. he goes on to say there will be no doubt donald trump is guilty of falsifying business records, as you consider all of the evidence the people will present. we asked you to use your common sense. just your thoughts about the opening statements and what we've learned from the prosecution so far, what jurors are taking in. >> one thing that i thought matthew colangelo, the lawyer delivering the opening statement for the prosecution did that i thought was very effective. the first words out of his mouth, this case is about -- that is so important for the framing o'after case, and what

he said is not that this case is about falsified business records. he said this case is about a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 presidential election, and then he goes on to describe not one but three schemes that they tried to kill, the stormy daniels story, the karen mcdougal story and the story of a doorman that there was a meeting between donald trump and michael cohen and david pecker on august 15th to discuss all of the ways that they would work together to hide and conceal from the public these disparaging stories that would affect the outcome of the 2016 election. and they went on red alert when the access hollywood tape came out. so the falsification of the business records is really just a means to the end of corrupting the 2016 election, and i think that is not only what makes this a crime, it makes it a felony and also brings great jury appeal, from a trivial mistake on business records, instead to a much larger scheme to corrupt the election.

>> and we understand that the prosecutor has wrapped their opening statement? >> reporter: the prosecution after 45 minutes and 30 seconds has wrapped up their opening statements to this jury here, making it clear, quote, donald trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. the prosecutor telling the jury, tune out the noise, focus on the facts. focus on the logical inference that follows from those facts. focus on the evidence, listen to that testimony. at that point, todd blanche, donald trump's lead attorney then stood up and has now just begun to make the opening statements. i want to read you the beginning here. good morning, your honor, president trump did not commit any crimes. the manhattan d.a.'s office should have never brought this case. he is just beginning these opening statements so i want to make sense of them here before we go further. we should make it clear here that todd blanche indicated he was prepared to deliver about 20 minutes of opening statements here. he intends to make forward to

the case that these charges should never have even been brought against donald trump in the first place. again, one other time note is that we've got just a little over an hour left of the trial here today. trial will conclude at 12:30 p.m. eastern time. this has been an intense already hour out of the gate here, and now the defense is beginning to open with their statements to the jury. >> 45 minutes, 30 seconds for the prosecution and the defense has indicated they'll have about 20 minutes in their opening statement, and again, let me read that first line from donald trump's lawyer. good morning, your honor. president trump did not commit any crimes. the manhattan d.a.'s office should never have brought this case. barbara first question to you about just wrapping the prosecution's opening statements. 45 minutes 30 seconds. your take on the amount of time they spent laying out their case in this very consequential and historic trial? >> yeah, i always thought shorter is better because the longer you go, you risk losing

the attention of a jury, but the prosecution because they have the burden of proof here, they want to lay out and explain the road map and who these people are they're going to be hearing from. i think 45 minutes is about the upper limit of what i would want to do in an opening statement. absolutely never more than an hour. many lawyers violate that rule because they get caught up in the minutia of their evidence. it is important to introduce the names. they're going to hear names, they're going to hear date, they're going to hear events, so giving that perspective and that overall vision of what the case is going to look like i think is really important for framing of the case so that the jury knows when they hear names, when they hear events they can go back to that opening and say, i remember what they said about this. here's how these various pieces fit together in the puzzle. >> thank you so much for being with us. i'm just wondering as a defense attorney looking at what blanch has said in the early, you know, minutes of it, among the things

he says is this is donald trump that you have seen for many, many years on tv and in other places. he is in some ways larger than life, but he is also here in this courtroom doing what any of us would do, defend himself. he kind of has to be there, doesn't he? >> he absolutely has to be there. the judge wouldn't let him waive his right to be there. if i'm the defense here, to teb die owe's point about what the prosecution will do, a common thing defense attorneys will do is get ahead of the unsavory characteristics of their defendant but te tell the jury, you don't have to like my client. he may have done unseemly things in the past. they even prepared jurors in voir dire asking questions about how do you feel about people that potentially cheat on their wives. would you be able to keep an open mind with respect to them. oftentimes you'll see defense attorneys say, look, my client's

not a choir boy, right? he's not an angel, but that doesn't make him a criminal. the hook here is that trump is the client here. i don't know that trump is going to actually allow todd blanche to say anything negative about trump or even, you know, admit to potential infidelities in his marriage or having these types of affairs, things like that. i'll be interested to see just how far blanche goes in acknowledging some of these unsavory, you know, we call them awful but lawful things that trump did in the lead up to this election. i'll be really interested to see how far trump -- >> we should mention that trump has denied having had any affair. he's admitted to paying cohen, but he's denied that underlying allegation related to an affair. so vaughn, as the opening statements continue from todd blanche, donald trump's attorney, what else is he saying? >> reporter: to that point

specifically, i want to read you a quote from todd blanche on behalf of his client, donald trump, to the jury, quote, he's also a man. he's a husband. he's a father just like me. for todd blanche presenting his defendant in a much more sympathetic light here. i want to read some other quotes from inside the courtroom. quote, he's in some ways larger than life but he's also here in this courtroom doing what any of us would do, defend himself, and he said that we will call him president trump out of respect. it's the office he's running for right now as the republican nominee. we are waiting for todd blanche to get to the specifics of this case here, but he is so far outlining donald trump as somebody who is unaware that any crime, if there was a crime, would have been committed. todd blanche specifically in response to the prosecutor's time line and 45 minutes of opening statements says, quote,

the story you just heard you will learn is not true. he is suggesting that invoices, the ones that donald trump even signed, those personal reimbursement checks in 2017 to michael cohen, they went through a process that ultimately just required the signature of donald trump himself, and that he thought that he was doing legal services that michael cohen was doing legal services on behalf of him suggesting that michael cohen was his long-time lawyer and that well in the white house, despite the obvious relationship that he had with michael cohen, he was signing the checks for the rendering of legal services. he is now just in realtime beginning to get to some of those specifics to dispute what we heard from the prosecution, but todd blanche making it clear that he intends to present to the jury that the story that they are presenting is untrue and that there's going to be reasonable doubt about donald trump's guiltiness at the conclusion of this several week trial. >> yeah, i mean, chuck, blanche

insistence on so what on earth is a crime. what's a crime of which i just described. he says that these business records, violations, 34 counts are really just 34 pieces of paper. chuck, how necessary is it for a defense in this case or in any case to obfuscate things and to try and clarify those things that can best benefit your client? >> sure, jose, with the caveat, again, that the defense doesn't have to prove anything and the burden never shifts to the defense, trying to make the government's case seem more complex than the government made it is a tact. nothing wrong with it. the defense attorneys have one advantage here. they can say things in their opening statement and not actually have to prove it. at the end of the day, the government cannot at any point

argue that the defendant failed to produce evidence or failed to call witnesses or fail to introduce documents. the defendant has an absolute fifth amendment right not to testify and has an absolute right not to put on a case in the defense. so what mr. blanch is doing here, mr. trump's lawyer, is essentially what you would expect from any good defense lawyer. telling the jury don't believe what you just heard from the government by telling them that no crime was committed, trying to humanize mr. trump in some ways, and then perhaps leaving dangling a bit the prospect that they will have evidence down the road in the trial to demonstrate the things that mr. blanche is saying. again, they don't have to prove anything. so they do have a slight advantage in their opening statement of saying things that they don't later have to back up. the government must back up everything it has said. >> here's what else todd blanche

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

actual funds. i think they're presenting what they expect to be their counternarrative because they have to, and we'll see whether it's effective. >> blanche is now saying president trump had nothing to do with the invoices. he had nothing to do. he was just essentially dealing with a ledger like people deal with their checking account checks, and when you say the president had nothing to do with it, you're in a sense saying he can't be guilty of anything he didn't know about. >> yeah, they're saying where's the intent here? >> there's an interesting thing that one of the prosecutors did in jury voir dire, which essentially he was saying to the jury you understand, right, that, you know, if someone takes a contract out with a hitman to kill their wife, that person's guilty of a crime, right? i mean, that's sort of their way of saying, yeah, donald trump did not have to personally engage in every single act to

make this conspiracy, this agreement a reality, as long as he has the intent for what it was supposed to do for him. >> how much can ignorance safe save you? >> right, he's got to remember he still has to contend with the transcript of the audio tape. that's one of the things that defense attorneys are going to also have to deal with is all these things that prosecution and laying out for 45 minutes and 30 seconds, you know, is this point of, look, you have to look at this all together to understand what happened here, whereas the defense is saying let's piecemeal it. let's say this is just paper. let's say, you know, but donald trump didn't create these invoices, was just told to sign them. this is exactly what happens in trials all the time. it's totally legitimate. it's as effective as, you know, you can imagine defense attorneys being. it's what it's supposed to be. it's the jury that's going to say what do i think of that audio tape transcript, what do i think about this timing? what do i think about these two

calls where michael cohen has with trump and then runs across the street and creates the bank account. those are the kinds of things the jury has to decide. >> before the election. >> right before the election and we assume with evidence that's going to come in about just how concerned donald trump's campaign was. >> what do you see, caroline, as the biggest challenge for donald trump's defense team? >> there are a lot. just based on what i'm hearing here, i am fearful that todd blanche may be sort of overselling his hand, going back to the psychology, and i think we've all made this point here that you want to create a rapport with the juror, and you want them to like you. the worst thing you can do is over promise and under deliver. it sounds like blanche is over promising here. there's a lot of reasons why him stating that trump knew nothing about these payments or the purpose thereof is just flatly

proven wrong by the documents. >> and the phone calls right? >> there's a phone call of trump saying let's pay her in cash. cohen saying, no, we're going to do it my way. also, the way retainer agreements work with attorney ss that, yes, there is sort of an evergreen standard payment, in this case it was $35,000 a month or whatever to get up to that amount, but then the lawyer bills you or invoices you for services renders, and here there is nothing. michael cohen did not -- we all sort of live and die by the billable hours. we have to say what we do, how we do it, when we do it. the invoices here simply show michael cohen saying i'd like that check now for my retainer agreement. he's not done any legal services. i think it's not doing him any service, the defense by trying to really state too much. they don't have to really necessarily deny knowledge and i think they're making a mistake by doing that.

>> 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

filled out, exactly what he was writing checks for and that michael cohen was not getting just reimbursed, he was getting paid because he was his long-time personal lawyer. he is trying to make the case that the ledger is much like a checkbook, and it's just a little denotation here, trying to make out donald trump to be a more sympathetic, unwitting actor in all of this, someone who is being unfairly indicted and charged and prosecuted and that the focus of the hush money payments in and of themselves and maybe salacious, but that in itself is not a crime. todd blanche here trying to make donald trump seem to the jury as somebody who is an innocent man who is being unfairly victimized. >> and vaughn, as you were speaking we're hearing that merchan the judge has called a bench meeting interrupting donald trump's lawyer right now after another objection by the prosecution leading up to this bench meeting, we're quoting blanche as saying you will hear he fought back, like he always

does, to protect his family, his reputation, and his -- i think there's a typo here, it says brink. you will hear about hush money payments from another individual. how do you make sense of this, temidayo sno. >> i think, one, it is not normal to object during someone's opening statement. as lawyers at trial, it has to be pretty egregious in your perspective to stand out. one, it's just as a professional courtesy. people do not look friendly on that. it can make you look weak. part of your job as a prosecutor is you want to exert strength to the jury. as prosecutor that is so important. i think for the prosecutors to object and to get overruled, that's not a good start there. if you're going to object, you want to stand on very sure ground. now, to this meeting between -- that merchan just called. it may be the fact that we're seeing multiple objections and he may be saying what's going

on. let's take it away from the jury and have that discussion. it could be something that's happening as far as body lang, which we'll see. sometimes what happens is it might be the former president exhaling or he's been doing something else that the judge might be saying this is getting a little out of hand. >> merchan sustained this last objection. so there have been at least two objections, as far as we know, one was overruled. this one was sustained. asks for the past comments to be stricken from the record. >> there is more of this right? >> reporter: right. this is -- if you can forgive me as we're trying to track this in realtime and make notes as they come in here. this was ultimately, if you give me a second here. >> vaughn, as you're looking at that -- >> reporter: blanche says that, if you may pick it up. >> you make sense of it, and we'll just chat with our -- it looks like trump is also talking at one point with his attorneys

asking one of the attorneys to tell todd blanche something. blanche is the one who is giving the statement, the opening statement for the defense team right now. so maya, it sounds like a lot of this is very sort of off script as to how opening statements go. first question, why would there have been an objection. >> they are trying to paint this sinister, it is a crime, entering into a nondisclosure agreement is perfectly legal as something that the prosecution had objected to. >> i can't get in the mind of the prosecution here. i completely agree with temidayo, it's not a common thing to stand up and object, but it sounds like they're getting very concerned about that/blanche is taking up too much of a role of the judge and telling the jury what the law is. it is only the judge that

instructs the jury. it is the jury's job to apply the facts and the evidence to the law. they may be concerned blanche is going to continue to do this. it sounds like a second objection that was sustained, my guess and it's only a guess, that the judge was being very judicious and saying let's let the defense attorney keep going. i haven't heard anything that crosses quite that big line yet, but then something changes. >> he did, and when he sustained it, he actually said that he was striking those past comments. he asked that those comments be stricken from the record. normally the judges give on opening statements a lot of leeway as they do on the closing, right? on the opening, it's a lot of leeway. what would prompt this exchange to happen? >> yeah, well, as temidayo and i were here just cringing. it really, really does not happen that you object during an

opening or a closing. it has to be really, really bad to do so. it's a professional courtesy but it's just kind of understood sort of in the business that, you know, you get a little bit more leeway in what you can get away with, and again, maya's exactly right. it's only the part of the judge to instruct the jurors as to the law. the jurors sometimes get confused about what they can and cannot sort of take for granted or take as true and sometimes jurors would, you know, the fear is that they would misunderstand, they would take an argument, a legal argument made by one of the lawyers and think that they have to internalize that. in this case todd blanche is saying x is not illegal. a juror may internalize that. it sounds like, again, nothing has been smooth in this trial. i think we're going to get -- i mean, you have such great lawyers really on both sides looking for those objections. i don't think either side is going to give the other side much leeway in terms of getting

things in here. there's what's known as a curative instruction. the judge is sort of striking that part of the record. you can't unring a bell, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. it's. >> trump is telling one of his attorneys to tell blanche something to say, again, you're a defense attorney, how often does the defendant during opening statements tell you what to say? >> oh, boy, i mean, trump is unlike any other defendant. i mean, it's better than falling asleep perhaps, it shows that he's sort of invested in his defense, but no, and it sounds like potentially there was some commotion in the courtroom that the judge wanted to get ahold of. i always tell my clients to stay awake, look interested. take notes and then at a designated time we can discuss the notes that you have but let's not do it in realtime. >> this is so fascinating but

there's a continuing of the narrative of donald trump by his attorney as a family guy, as a regular guy. >> reporter: right, and actually, part of that, jose, that you're bringing up about being a family guy is at the heart of what we believe the objection may have been over. in this business we do have things called phone a friend, and joyce vance jumping in. we believe the line that may have been stricken from the record directly had to do with todd blanche, donald trump's attorney, suggesting that that arrangement was made with stormy daniels in an effort to protect his family from that story becoming public, and that is when the prosecution objected. we have not heard them bring up this line of questioning again. again, this hits at the heart of trying to present donald trump as a more sympathetic figure and contrast that with who they're currently talking about, and that is michael cohen. michael cohen is going to be

that defining star witness. there's going to be a cast of others. michael cohen openly questioning here. i want to read a couple quotes about michael cohen from todd blanche to this jury, quote, he has talked extensively about his desire to see president trump go to prison. he suggested that he is obsessed with donald trump and continues to be and that he was upset that in 2017 he was not given a role formally inside of the white house but instead continued to have to serve on the outside of the oval office in a personal capacity here. todd blanche goes on to say last night 12 hours ago mr. cohen on a public forum said that he had mental excitement about this trial and his testimony. he has a goal of getting president trump. todd blanche is emphasizing that they should question the credibility of michael cohen who was, yes, a long time friend but somebody who in the years since, we go back to 2018 when these

relationships started to fray, has since gone on the attack against donald trump after he was pushed out from donald trump's orbit. it's a lot about the credibility of these witnesses in these opening statements that todd blanche, donald trump's attorney is trying to hit home for this jury. >> and again, another objection to testimony, rather statements made by todd blanche, trump's attorney that was also sustained by judge merchan just a moment ago, and another bench conference that's taking place. we're going to come back to these opening statements in just a moment, but there is another trump legal hearing underway right now dealing with the civil fraud trial, and this is a bond hearing. let's go to our yasmin vossoughian for an update on that. >> reporter: yeah, so on friday, a.g. letitia james filed that $175 million bond that trump put into place should not stand because she argued that the company that was holding the

bond didn't necessarily have the funds to back it up. the hearing was taking place today. in fact, the judge has just ruled that the bond does, in fact, stand. just to remind tokes, this bond was reduced from over $455 million down $175 million in late march. one other thing i want to mention, guys is we did hear from judge merchan is that the trump civil fraud judgment will be readmitted as evidence, by the prosecution if the former president decides to testify, makes the decision to testify between himself and his attorneys. >> thanks, and let's stay close because right now and i'm thinking, caroline, it's really interesting that now the defense is going in and honing in on michael cohen telling the jury that he pled guilty to lying under oath. why would the prosecution object to so many of these cases when they're talking about people who the prosecution already recognized were problematic

witnesses. why object to this restatement of facts? >> yeah, i don't know, and if i'm todd blanche, i'm really angry that the prosecution is sort of interrupting my flow. it's the one time you get sort of an uninterrupted, you know, moments with the jury to explain your theory of the case. my guess is we talked a lot about motions in limine, that predetermine what types of evidence you can get into in the trial. cases are won and lost in motions in limine. we've been talking about these arguments over the access hollywood tape and things of that nature, what you can and cannot say, so it sounds like the prosecutors are make objections to areas and realms in which the defense may be going into that has already been prohibited by the judge. or making arguments that haven't

been previewed by the prosecutor so that they have a fair fight. i don't know the specifics, but it sounds like that could be the issue. >> i think you're on to something there. i'm looking at just some additional information coming from our katie phang who is also among those who are able to see the proceedings as they're taking place, and she says that her understanding is that this could have to do with what the judge had previously ruled about being able to go to like attorney/client privilege as an argument so they bring up that there were multiple lawyers, maya, that were involved in these payments suggesting that trump was just following add advice of his lawyers. >> and donald trump refused to waive attorney/client privilege. so you can understand the prosecutor saying, wait, we're not -- we don't have an ability to challenge what your client wouldn't waive, and now you're putting in before a jury essentially a kind of defense without it being subject to real testing in a court before the jurors, and so i can kind of

understand why this would become one that they would object to. i think getting the fact that the judge has sustained too also tells us something. this is judges temidayo has been very moderate in the sense of ensuring that this judge is being fair to both sides of this case, and we've seen this judge split the difference. sustaining two objections in a row tells us that the judge is concerned too. >> and as a prosecutor, temidayo, what is your calculus about whether or not to jump in. you don't know how that's going to be perceived by the jury. >> you do have a presumption about how defense counsel is going to try this case, and if i'm the prosecutor here, i expect defense counsel to reflect the client they have, which means they're not going to be playing within the rules the entire way, which means they're going to be more aggressive, which means they're going to go on the offensive to paint this

narrative that may not always be tied to the facts and the law. if i'm a prosecutor, i'm probably on high alert. like you said, caroline, once a jury hears something, it gets kind of done in a way. you can get a curative instruction. you have to be priming yourself to jump up and getting the judge as well because it's small things now. in two weeks, it could be the defense doing something a lot larger and you want the judge ready to basically smack them down by priming him again and again that these folks are not following the rules, and it's time to hold them to account. >> just wondering your thought offense this unusual no doubt, but blanche is now focusing in on stormy daniels, her story, and her character, but how unusual, chuck, do you see these interruptions? >> yeah, as a prosecutor, jose, i tried to never object, but that doesn't mean i never objected. you had a conversation at the table a few moments ago, and i

think you all are on to something. if mr. blanche in his opening was beginning to talk about things that the judge had already ruled inadmissible, then you have to object as the prosecutor. it would be unfair for mr. blanche -- i don't know that he did this. i'm surprising, but it would be unfair for a defense attorney, let's say, to start talking about things in front of a jury that the judge had already ruled inadmissible. i hated to object, but that doesn't mean i never objected. i also think it's important that if you're going to object that you better win, in other words, the judge better sustain the objection. that seems to have happened a couple of times so far. i also think we ought to be careful here. we're at the beginning of a weeks' long trial, and we are focusing on the things in front of us, of course. that's sensible. but at the end of the day, this jury is going to be hearing from lots of witnesses and seeing lots of documents, and so the

controversies that we're dissecting now are going to fade, and they're going to make a decision based on the law and the evidence down the road. it's interesting to talk about, but right now it's surmise, and i think we just need to be a little bit careful about that. >> chuck, can i ask you as, again, a fellow professional, when you have somebody like todd blanche who is a former federal prosecutor himself. he was in the southern district of new york office, he knows the rules, so are you surprised he would be making comments that are so objectionable that the judge actually sustains when prosecution makes an objection during opening statements? >> well, again, ana, great question. i would need to know precisely why the objection was sustained, but let's hypothesize that mr. blanche was trying to expose the jury to some line of argument that the judge had ruled inadmissible. the fact that mr. blanche is a former federal prosecutor or an officer of the court or both,

frankly, doesn't mean he or other lawyers wouldn't try to slip something in. so you have to object. again, don't like doing it. prefer not to. if that's what's happening, you have to object, and i don't know that the fact that mr. blanche comes from the same background that i come from means he might not try to do that. don't really know what he did here, though. that's why i want to be careful about not sort of impugning his motives or pretending that i know exactly what the judge had ruled out that mr. blanche was trying to get in. >> it looks like there was some sustained, some overruled. let's go right back to yasmin vossoughian with what's going on inside that courtroom. >> reporter: todd blanche is wrapping up his opening statements, jose, wrapping up the michael cohen portion in which he essentially said, listen, this man, he raised his hand, he raised his right hand. he said i will tell the truth. nothing but the truth so help me. and yet he lied about that.

hence the reason why you should not believe michael cohen. he said i submit to you and i will talk to you again, given this, you cannot make a serious decision about president trump relying on the words of michael cohen. he moves on to stephanie clifforded, also known as stormy daniels. he talks about donald trump needing stormy daniels in 2006, how they talked about the apprentice at the time and the possibility of her becoming a contestant on the apprentice. stormy daniels dined off of that story for years now, writing a book, doing a documentary as well. and then he says, and i quote, i'm going to say something else about her testimony, and this is important. it does not matter. her testimony while salacious does not matter, and then he goes on to talk about the catch does not matter. then he talks about the catch and kill scheme. he reminds the jury the president hasn't been charged. he says catch and kill to purchase the rights is not against the law. he says i quote i encourage you

to listen over the next couple of days when you hear mr. pecker testify. catch and kill is not against the law. todd blanche has wrapped up in fact his opening statements, guys. as we move on to see if we're going to hear from the first witness, david pecker. >> opening statement, 35 minutes and ten seconds for those of us keeping count. certainly a lot longer than expected, but there were the interruptions. as we await what happens next, they're supposed to wrap trial at 12:30 today because one of the jurors had an emergency dentist appointment that came up. so they're going to have a short recess and judge merchan is asking the jurors to step out. we'll keep everybody posted here, but just that last part of the opening statement from the defense where he brings up stormy daniels and he says you're going to hear from her

but whatever she says does not matter. does her testimony matter or not? there we see donald trump just left the courtroom. >> you know, what matters is how the prosecution is going to use her testimony and what the jury thinks of it. i think what the defense is saying is donald trump says he did not have an affair. stormy daniels says she did. she's going to be able to speak to that part's irrelevant. whether or not it happened is not relevant to this case. even if he didn't have the affair, the prosecution could say it doesn't matter. in that sense, i think both sides could agree. legally, that's irrelevant. the relevancy here is the payments and the question is what does stormy daniels know about the conversations about intents behind the payments. she understands what her intent was, which was she was going to go public and try to sell the

story. what more does she know. that's i think where the question is going to be for the jury. whether or not it's relevant and what they believe. >> so, the judge has just asked for a ten-minute recess, which would mean that the, everybody has to be back in about eight minutes now, right? about noon. what happens now? >> you know, it doesn't seem that since they have to adjourn at 12:30, i'm guessing likely, typically you would get into the first witness. the prosecution would call their first witness. they don't typically like to sort of interrupt the flow of that. i would guess he's going to actually just dismiss the jurors for the day. why call a witness, get that sort of testimony going and then end it abruptly. so you know, this is a bureaucracy, right? a lot of people get frustrated by how slowly sometimes the court moves. one juror has a dentist appointment today. that means the entirety of this

case can't move forward. really good they chose six alternates. i would not be surprised if we lose a juror during the course of this trial. things happen. in order to ensure they never, this case goes to verdict, they have those six alternates in place. >> if you were the prosecution right now heading into this break, your arguments, statements are done and the defense statements are done. with all of those interruptions, what's in your mind as you're preparing for the first witness testimony? >> everything, the trial is all about preparation. you're also looking at the defense opening and thinking about your case and how it impacts you. for example, they put out trump as a family man. wrapped him in a flag and said she's a family man. going back to stormy daniels, yes, there's an affair that's

alleged here. that's not an element of a crime. but it's going to matter to the jury. is the prosecution credible? if you come out with testimony that details an affair that says that donald trump cheats on his wife who's pregnant at home and that's what this is about, all of a sudden, todd blanche who told you this was this man in a flag who loves his family, loses credibility. if i'm the prosecution, i have a case planned that's been set for months and it's solvent but you're going to be tweaking it and refining it based on what's happening day to day. that opening statement from blanche, you're going to remember that. you aren't ever going to shift the burden to defense but you're going to take those little nuggets and think about how you can undermine the claims that donald trump's lawyer has made and show the jury they're not credible. we the government are credible. >> i'm just thinking, maya, what about those jury members? >> this is a new york jury.

donald trump has been a new yorker for a very long time. donald trump has been in the news for a very long time as a celebrity. donald trump has had a long history with a lot of women. and the access hollywood tape is something many people heard and they're going to hit the transcripts. the idea, i actually think that what blanche was going for was to try to suggest that there are other reasons for donald trump making this payment that has nothing to do with the election. that's really i think the doubt that he was trying to sew. i think he did it badly. goes back to caroline's point. you don't say that somebody who is obviously and historically not a family man is a family man because that just doesn't pass muster. this is a manhattan jury. i think everyone on that jury has some little piece of information that says that ain't true. >> we have less than a minute,

but your final thoughts on where we go from here. >> 100%, i agree with maya. he's just not a family man. i think there are two lawyers on this jury, remember, and traditionally, neither side wants a lawyer on that jury. it's a more difficult task for the prosecution. i don't think the defense has in their mind that an acquittal is in the cards here. they're going for a hung jury. so they are going for that one person and if that's the lawyer that thinks i'm smarter than everybody else, you didn't meet your burden, that's a win for the defense. >> caroline, maya, thank you so much. that wraps up this hour for us. >> thank you for the privilege of your time. i'll be back with you at 3:00 p.m. andrea mitchell and chris jansing pick up our special coverage, next. s jansing pick up our special coverage, next tressful day can trigger migraine attacks too.

that's why my go to is nurtec odt. it's the only migraine medication that can treat and prevent my attacks all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion and stomach pain. now i'm in control. with nurtec odt i can treat a migraine attack and prevent one. talk to your doctor about nurtec today. it's time. yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door

precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪♪ nexium 24hr prevents heartburn acid for twice as long as pepcid. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium. you've got xfinity wifi at home. cho take it on the gon. with xfinity mobile. customers now get exclusive access to wifi speed up to a gig in millions of locations. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free. that's like getting two unlimited lines for twenty dollars a month each for a year. so, ditch the other guys and switch today. buy one line of unlimited, get one free for a year with xfinity mobile! plus, save even more and get an eligible 5g phone on us! visit xfinitymobile.com today. when others divide. we unite. with real solutions to help our kids. like community schools.

neighborhood hubs that provide everything from mental health services to food pantries. academic tutoring to prom dresses. healthcare to after care. community schools can wrap so much around public schools. ...and through meaningful partnerships with families, they become centers of their communities. real solutions for kids and communities at aft.org