wall-to-wall wifi with xfinity. good day. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. an agreement among friends. that's how former national enquirer ceo david pecker

describes the secret meeting to catch and kill stories from karen mcdougal and stormy daniels before they could sink donald trump's presidential campaign. now, that is not illegal. so, how does testimony from pecker help the prosecution prove that trump committed a crime? plus, trump's attorney tieing himself in rhetorical knots, trying to defend trump's social media posts and convince the judge trump has not violated his gag order. todd blanche saying the president is being very careful and the frustrating judge responding, quote, you're losing all credibility with this court. why is he waiting to rule? and taking its toll, with reporters observing trump as looking thinner and older, against many parts of today's proceedings with his eyes closed and venting his frustration on social media, what will be the impact on this trial and the race for president? we have got more on that coming up.

but we start with former national enquirer ceo david pecker back on the stand right now. one of the few men in the room with donald trump when the prosecution says the conspiracy at the heart of this trial was hatched. pecker testifying today about that critical trump tower meeting in which he, trump and michael cohen hashed out a plan to keep potentially damaging stories from becoming public. in pecker's words, it was mutually beneficial, helping to sell papers while simultaneously helping donald trump's campaign. i want to bring in nbc's vaughn hillyard outside the courthouse for us. in the studio, catherine christian, former assistant d.a. at the manhattan district attorney's office and msnbc legal analyst, chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney, senior fbi official and msnbc contributor. a lot to get to today. vaughn what is the very latest? >> reporter: david pecker has now testified over the course of the last two hours, essentially

corroborating public statements that michael cohen now made for years, that in august of 2015, at a meeting at trump tower between him, donald trump and michael cohen, that they concocted the catch and kill scheme. not only of salacious stories like what ultimately would become the stormy daniels story, but also to plant negative stories about his opponents, incluing from the likes of ted cruz to hillary clinton. we also have david pecker testifying this morning that donald trump was a micromanager, somebody who evaluated the invoices that were provided and the checks that were provided to him, and had a good understanding about the finances that he was involved in. and we have david pecker, over the course of these last two hours, testifying they have been friends, dating back to the 1980s and for the better part of a decade, they had a mutual relationship when donald trump was on the air with the apprentice and in which the two would exchange, number one,

money from david pecker to donald trump in exchange for stories about behind the scenes secret information related to "the apprentice" and "celebrity apprentice" there is back and forth over steve bannon's role in 2016 in this scheme, in which david pecker says he was introduced to steve bannon by donald trump and was told to work with steve bannon about some of these potential stories as it related to hillary clinton. we also have testimony here coming from david pecker in just the last few minutes about the -- about the efforts within the "national enquirer" to secret is conversations with trump and michael cohen, but also we're getting at the heart of potential documentary evidence that the prosecution would like to bring forward before the jury. right now, he is asking the prosecution is asking david pecker about text messages and email records that were within american media incorporated, of

course david pecker is no longer the publisher, but this is getting at the ability to enter these records into the -- into the courts in front of the jury here. and that is where we find ourselves nearly two hours now into david pecker's second day of testimony. chris? >> vaughn, get back to us if there is any other major breaking news from inside that courthouse. but, catherine, let me start with you, with what he just talked about, right, there is what people say, and what documentary evidence, what phone calls, what other kinds of evidence prove and i want to give you the analysis of what just happened from lisa rubin. she writes the prosecution is asking the series of questions to allow admission of ami business records that pecker himself might not be on. she said it is important because as the chairman and ceo during the time period in question, pecker can authenticate the records and get them into evidence. the defense is objecting, saying this is hearsay, why is this

important? >> it is legally called laying the foundation. so, the prosecution is laying the foundation for the admission of these documents. and you're going to do it through the head of the ami, the company where it came from. and pecker is very important witness because he's at the center of the scheme to influence the election. that trump tower meeting he was at, he said i'm going to be the eyes and ears. and the little nuggets he said during the testimony, vaughn picked up on one of them, describing trump as a micromanager. >> let me read exactly what he said. >> very detail oriented, also micromanaging, i thought his approach to money, he was very cautious and very frugal. >> it is very important. when the defense says, oh, he was hands off, you know, michael cohen did all of that, pecker is saying, no, this is someone who is very hands on, very detail oriented, invoices are part of the business records that trump

allegedly falsified. it is very important testimony. and it is only the beginning. >> they were friends. at least to the extent, chuck, they saw each other pretty regularly. he actually started a magazine for donald trump. they would see each other at the very least quarterly, but often multiple times, of course, sometimes once a month. is that relationship that was established early on important? does it give him credibility as somebody talking about donald trump? >> to catherine's point, you're not just laying the foundation to admit documents. you're also laying the foundation to the jury as to why they ought to believe, you know, mr. pecker. and when he says, for instance, that trump was detail oriented or micromanager, how would he know that? he would know that because they have spent so much time together. he would know that because they have discussed business together. so, you're laying the foundation in many ways, and, by the way, you're not just doing it through mr. pecker. he's, you know, witness number

one on days number one and two. they're going to be many more witnesses, and they're going -- the prosecutors are going to ask all the witnesses how do you know the things that you say you know? what is the basis for it. all of that foundational testimony tells the jury in essence, you can trust the government's case. >> so, catherine, the prosecution has been drilling down on alleged conspiracy. hatch, between these three guys that now infamous trump tower meeting, and, vaughn talked about this, as part of that, they allege pecker agreed to be the eyes and ears of the campaign. the eyes and ears. publish flattering stories about trump, negative stories about his opponent, but as we have said, that's not a crime, paying hush money is not a crime. so, what is the value in establishing that? >> because they're going to argue the prosecution, this was all part of trying to unlawfully influence the election. so, they have to, the prosecutor, prove there was an intent to defraud and there was

an intent to conceal and commit another crime as part of the proof of that falsifying business records. so, all this testimony is beginning to establish that. and we haven't even gotten to that ami pay $30,000 to the door man and $150,000 to the playboy model, miss mcdougal. all of that, mr. mcdougal will be back, or back on thursday. who knows when cross examination will start. we talk about michael cohen being the main witness, david pecker, you can say co-equal or even more of a main witness for the prosecution. >> it is interesting to me the way that they have structured this case, chuck, and i'm very curious what you think. because it can be very difficult when you're laying the foundation or you're doing technical testimony, frankly to keep the attention of the jurors, they're sitting there, although ten of the 12 asked for notebooks. many may be taking notes. they're getting an inside look at the world that was the

national enquirer, inside world of catch and kill. they talked about how the negative articles went out about ted cruz. pecker said negative articles, headlines, main images we published on mr. trump's opponents that he would get information from michael cohen and then "the national enquirer" would embellish it from there. when he said we, he said, cohen, was talking about it, i thought he was talking about himself and mr. trump. how important is the salacious inside baseball part of this, as they weave this story? >> well, you want to give a jury, to your point, chris, a peek behind the curtain. the articles didn't happen by chance, that there was a rhyme and a reason for them, and it was orchestrated, not just by mr. pecker, but mr. cohen at mr. trump's direction. not everything in a trial is salacious.

not everything in a trial is interesting. in the movies, of course, it always is. in real life, there are parts that are dry, and when you're just perhaps authenticating documents through custodians of record, but this part i would imagine is not dry. it could become dry. you have to be careful. you don't want to linger too long on this one topic. >> but do you want to sprinkle that stuff in, make sure you're keeping their attention? >> sure. absolutely. i think that's important in the following sense -- you want to -- they get to pick who they want to put on and what order they want to put on. you sprinkle in some interesting witnesses throughout the trial, maybe if you have to put in records, you do it at the end of the long day, though i like to end on a high note. the government gets to pick how they do this. not everything will be riveting. but everything will be important. >> so, there are also making a big deal about a 2016 recording, and this is where the prosecution points out you can

hear donald trump talking to michael cohen about paying off allegedly karen mcdougal, this is first reported by "the new york times" but released generally to the public. let me play that to remind folks what that recording sounds like. >> i node to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend david, you know, so that -- i'm going to do that right away. i've actually come up and i've spoken -- >> give it to me and -- >> i've spoken to allen weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up. >> so what do we got to pay for this? >> yes. and it is all the stuff. >> yeah, i was thinking about that. >> all the stuff. because here you never know what the company -- >> he gets hit by -- >> correct. i'm all over that. and i spoke to allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be -- >> wait a sec, what financing? >> well, i have to pay something. >> pay with cash. >> no, no, no. i got it. >> trial class 101 as i understand it, i have never

taken it, but you don't say anything in opening that you can't prove, right? one of the things that todd blanche said was basically donald trump really wasn't involved in the details, and in that level of it, but you heard him say, give it to me, what do we pay this, pay with cash, what do you make of that recording -- >> the prosecution is, here it is, he's involved. >> smoking gun. >> the smoking gun. you know, michael cohen is talking about setting up a company, donald trump said let's pay cash. michael cohen said no. the defense will say, that tape ends with no, no, no, i got it. that's michael cohen. so, there is really michael cohen was steering it and our client really just said, the minimal. so, that's what they're going to have to do if that audio, the defense, but clearly the prosecution is going to say, look, detail oriented, micromanager, listen to the

tape, it speaks for itself. >> one thing that occurred to me when i listened to this again yesterday, this gets at the heart of beyond a reasonable doubt, right? you can make an argument as catherine just did on both sides of this, but in the context of the trial, what will the jury find as most believable, beyond a reasonable doubt? >> you can certainly almost always make an argument on both sides of any question. the question is can you make a credible argument on both sides? you're playing one audiotape. and it is important. but it is not going to be by itself determinative, chris. it will be important to corroborate what cohen says, it will be important to corroborate what pecker says, and it may corroborate what other people say. by the way, if i may, you're 100% right, you never say anything in opening as a prosecutor that you can't prove. but there is no burden of proof, ever, at any point, on a defense attorney.

so -- >> proof is different than the expectation you set for the jury, isn't it? >> yes. but defense attorneys get a little more leeway in their openings because at the end of the day, they can just say stuff, whether or not they can actually prove it doesn't matter because they don't have to. now, you want to win a case, right? if you want to actually rebut what the prosecution has offered, you can call witnesses and you can put your defendant on the stand, you can do all those things. but they don't have to. it is really incumbent on the government to prove what they say in opening. >> it does appear, just as i'm reading what is happening now, that donald trump may be listening to his lawyer and by that, we presume that his lawyer has said to him what most lawyers would say to a defendant in this case or any other case, don't make any kind of reaction to the jury that may allow them to make a judgment one way or another. so, they have started talking

about this third case that you mentioned. karen -- catherine, it is not karen mcdougal, not stormy daniels, but this allegation by a doorman at the trump tower, later found to be completely untrue that donald trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. and david pecker said, dino, they call him dino the doorman, was in the market selling a story that donald trump fathered an illegitimate girl with a maid. better that perhaps than reacting in some way to, again, another salacious allegation or something that at the time could have threatened his run for president. >> true or not, you're right. >> what do you make of the fact that trump is keeping calm?

for now? >> important for now. he should be. it is okay to, like, you know, be upset if a witness testifies and if you're, like, you're a defendant, i'm innocent and that's not true. but that he's just calm, closing his eyes, i don't think he's sleeping, people said he's asleep, that's fine. you just want him to sit there and be quiet. >> where does this go from here? we only got let's see about 45 more minutes before they got to call it a day. >> right, well, there are go to be a lot of witnesses yet to come. i don't know when they finish with mr. pecker. >> this i would assume would go to 2:00 local time. >> and thursday when trial resumes. >> what has he not established that they want him to establish? >> what i want to say, chris, this is not a race. you don't have to finish faster than some other trial. the government has to put in its case in its entirety, they have the burden of proof. what do you have to establish, great question. you have to establish the elements of the offense. you have to prove each element

beyond a reasonable doubt. that includes intent. not just that the records were false, but they were intentionally false. that's different. and so whether it is through mr. pecker and 30 others or mr. pecker and 45 others, the government ought not really care. they should take their time and get their case in because by the way, you don't get to do it again if you lose. >> is more better? more people saying the same thing? >> well, for a case like this, yes. at the end, they'll tie each one together. they'll connect the dots. >> this is a bit of an overstatement, catherine, i used to say there is no such thing as too much evidence. >> yes. >> so such thing as overtrying your case. >> catherine christian, chuck rosenberg, you'll stay with me. in 60 seconds, a fiery back and forth over whether or not trump violated his gag order. so how will judge merchan rule and what does it mean for the case going forward? and what does it mean for the case going forward oid eye disea, or t-e-d, which may need a different doctor. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com.

it's time to feed the dogs real food, not highly processed pellets. the farmer's dog is fresh food made with whole meat and veggies. it's not dry food. it's not wet food. it's just real food. it's an idea whose time has come. (vo) verizon small business days are here. april 22nd to the 28th. get a free tech check. and special offers. like a free 5g phone, when you switch. no trade-in required. partner with our experts today.

trump's gag order that officially was just supposed to be about whether trump violated it. and if so, what the punishment will be. we're still waiting to hear if judge merchan will hold trump in contempt, but it all turned into a very heated exchange between the judge and trump lawyer todd blanche who argued that trump is being very careful. well, it clearly frustrated judge merchan responded, mr. blanche, you're losing all credibility with this court. the stakes are high, like we find to start, but could ultimately include jail time. prosecutors argue that trump's disobedience of the order is willful. it is intentional, he knows what he's not allowed to do, and he does it anyway. that's what chris conroy said. blanche says president trump does in fact know what the gag order allows him to do and not allow him to do and there was absolutely no willful violation of the gag order. back with us, vaughn hillyard, catherine christian and chuck

rosenberg. so, catherine, how often, if at all, and, again, we're just reading it, we weren't in the courtroom, have you seen this kind of exchange, the judge, practically jumped off the page, he was frustrated. >> i've seen it. it doesn't happen a lot, but there are lawyers, usually on the defense side, who, you know, zealous advocates, they have to push the envelope. now, what you don't want as a lawyer, no matter which side you're on, is to have a judge say you're not credible. because then from -- to the end of trial, they're not going to take your word for things. and your opposing counsel, i had lawyers like that, i can't believe that person. so you never want to, no matter who your client is, lose your credibility as a lawyer. >> does it sound to you shocked that he's walking up to that line? >> i think judge merchan chose his words carefully, just as catherine said you don't ever want to lose your credibility as an advocate in a courtroom. i don't imagine a judge would

say that unless he thought it was happening. and that's a dagger. i've lost motions, i've won motions, i've won trials, all sorts of things happen when you're prosecuting a case. i've never had my credibility questioned. that would rock me to the core. >> tell me a little bit, vaughn, about what happened inside that room because as i read it again, it really was in part about the judge asking todd blanche, well, give us some specific instances of what donald trump was responding to, and really not getting the answer he wanted or any answer at all that he felt was responsive. >> reporter: right, judge merchan was frustrated repeatedly telling todd blanche to answer my question. that is what led to the questioning of todd blanche's credibility with the court. because there were two defenses that were really primarily given by todd blanche on behalf of his client for the ten social media posts, but also for walking ute

outside of the courtroom and in front of cameras, going in further and undermining michael cohen by calling him a liar. this was for todd blanche two defenses, one saying that he was not talking about their potential testimony to the jury, but instead he was responding politically to statements by the likes of michael cohen and stormy daniels, but when the judge asked him to articulate which posts or which statements he was exactly referring to, todd blanche was coming up empty and was not able to provide the specifics. then the second line of questioning for todd blanche from todd merchan was whether donald trump, you know, when he is reposting an article about michael cohen, with his photo on it, questioning his credibility as a potential witness, how does that not directly implicate donald trump as promoting, you know, misinformation or attacks

on a potential witness. michael cohen. and todd blanche struggled to directly answer that by saying that, well, reposts or not, technically statements by donald trump. of course, there is a long public record in which donald trump disputed what his lawyer said in that courtroom, but both responses from judge merchan led to -- by todd blanche led to frustrations by judge merchan because he felt like he was not getting a real response to the violations that were contended from the prosecution's office. >> vaughn, thank you for that. i'll go back to the gag hearing, what is going on right now in the courtroom is really interesting. you can see it on the side there, that cohen told pecker, according to the testimony here, that his boss was pleased after he botched the rights to the story alleging that trump fathered an illegitimate child. according to lisa rubin, pecker said he called cohen and told him, we have to go forward with this story, so they negotiated $30,000 to catch and kill this story.

that supposedly, again, untrue, donald trump had fathered this child. pecker agreed to pay it. i agree that it is important that this be removed from the market and cohen thanked him and said that the boss was very pleased. when you talk about a juror, how much of this is common sense? for example, michael cohen will almost certainly come on and say, yes, that was the conversation that the boss was very pleased. donald trump told me he was very pleased that this wasn't coming out at this time, but the defense is going to say that never happened. this came at a time, though, when nobody expected this to be an issue at trial. nobody thought this was going to be a case that went forward to donald trump. how do you present something like this in the most forceful way? >> well, if it was just michael cohen saying this, you could say to the defense has it, they can

just put him up as being a liar. you have pecker saying this is what michael cohen told me. so you have the corroboration from mr. pecker who is at the center of this. he was at that trump tower meeting. so, it is very -- again, we keep talking about michael cohen being the main witness, you know, i think pecker is the co-main witness and the boss. it is almost like this is not a mob case, but you basically have the co-conspirators, the lower level talking about how happy they are that the boss is pleased. and the boss, of course, is donald trump. >> okay, people's exhibit 154 just came in, chuck. and it is a source document and it is on ami letter head, that is the parent company, right, of "national enquirer." and pecker is asked to read the document. he does. 30,000 payable upon publication as set forth below exclusive source shall provide ami with information and any and all

documentation including but not limited to letters and legal documents and photographs and sources possession meaning dino the doorman relevant to the exclusivity period three months after ami publishes the exclusive. which means never, because ami was never going to publish it. but, again, the backup of this documentation, but it doesn't say donald trump knew. >> well, first of all, this is the catch part of the catch and kill. all the other parts presumably will be deduced over the course of the trial. here is the thing about conspiracies, chris, let's say you and i and catherine wanted to rob a bank. >> seems very likely. >> seems reasonably unlikely. >> yeah. >> we agree to do it and you case the bank and catherine buys the getaway car and i'm the one who goes in with the gun and robs the bank. we don't all have to do the same thing. we don't have to each know the

same thing. what we have to do in a conspiracy to each be liable for the bank robbery is agree to something unlawful. and so, it doesn't matter if you don't see mr. trump actually making the entries in the ledger, if he's agreed with other people to a scheme that reasonably leads, foreseeably leads to the false entries being made, just like three of us on the bank robbery, he's on the hook. >> this is the kind of thing that has in the past sent donald trump out at the end of the court day to speak to the media, very frustrated, saying things and then tweeting, if you'll forgive the old phrase, tweeting things on truth social that have gotten him into trouble. so, can we go back to the gag order for a second? as we watch what is unfolding there with david pecker's testimony. we don't know when judge merchan is going to rule whether or not these ten examples that were

given all violate the order or what he will do as a result of it. and, by the way, they're not asking for him to go to jail. but they're asking for him to face some consequences. but, if there is truly harm, and trump posting things about witnesses, for example, then why wait? wouldn't you want to get ahead of this as soon as you possibly could? >> yes, if i have one criticism of judge merchan, it is on this issue, that, first of all, he up it over to this week from last week and instead of just ruling from the bench today, which maybe he wants to put a written decision, he's, like, i'm reserving decision. it is this afternoon. they're off. i can imagine that the judge already has written the decision, this is just adding to it from what happened this morning and hopefully, hopefully by tomorrow morning, because as you said, chris, trump will just keep doing it because there is no consequence. >> all right. catherine christian, chuck rosenberg, thank you, both, so much.

trump now calling out for his loyal supporters amid low turnout outside the courthouse to show up. so, why are only a few small numbers of people actually coming? we'll talk about that coming up on "chris jansing reports." we'l on "chris jansing reports. uhhh. katie! i knew i'd find you here. i know, it's wild. i'm you from the future! anyway our doctor figured it out. all that constipation with belly pain that keeps coming back, it's ibs—c. she said linzess could help you get ahead of it. whatta you say? yess! get ahead of your ibs—c with linzess. linzess is not a laxative. it's a once—daily pill that helps you get ahead of your symptoms. it's proven to help you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. and helps relieve overall abdominal symptoms... belly pain, discomfort, and bloating. do not give linzess to children less than two. it may harm them.

do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. these aren't all the side effects. imagine...what could relief from ibs—c mean for you? talk to your doctor and say yess to linzess. learn how abbvie and ironwood could help you save. 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. i don't want you to move. and our california lawmakers i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity. 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 as the legal team defends him inside the courthouse, donald trump is frustrated at the striking lack of support outside. on his truth social app, trump asked supporters to go out and peacefully protest, rally behind maga, but to no avail. this morning, the designated protest area outside the courthouse contained only a handful of people and none visibly supporting the former president. he blames the poor showing on heightened security protocols. >> for americans, for people who want to come down and protest at the court, and they want to protest peacefully, we have more

police presence here than anyone has ever seen, blocks, you can't get near this courthouse. >> well, that's not true. because at the exact moment trump was speaking, our vaughn hillyard was right there outside the courthouse, he took this footage from his locked down camera space and streets are open, pedestrians are walking, vehicles are driving. brendan buck is an msnbc political analyst who served as an aide, and dasha burns is here with me. this is not new. a very small number of supporters have been showing up periodically, since the trial started, very small. but, what can you tell us? >> i was there yesterday at the courthouse. i was there last week and it is what you just saw there, there are some lone protesters, many of them actually not talking about the case at all, having their own soap boxes about various issues they want to talk about using the media that is there to try and call attention to whatever it is that they want to say that day.

no one is stopping anybody from doing that. i think what is also interesting is we haven't seen any of trump's family members show up. you wouldn't necessarily expect melania to sit there during a hush money trial, talking about trump's alleged affairs and what not, but not don jr., not eric, no one from his family has come out to the court to support him. we have seen him really lean on the media a lot. he spent a lot of time talking to press and we have seen him start to do these retail stops around new york. i was there when he stopped at a bodega a couple of weeks ago and there were some crowds. his campaign organized some people standing around. he spent a lot of time talking to supporters there, so, you know this is a man who really enjoys the adoration, the attention, and we see him here kind of yearning for that right now. >> he's not getting the big rallies and all the cheering he got before. so, brendan, when trump called on people, of course, to show up

on january 6th, we know how that ended. and to date, more than 1300 people have been charged in the attack on the capitol. i wonder what you think this lack of response is, is it about it is manhattan, which is mostly democratic, it is it that supporters don't want to take the risk, they saw what happened on january 6th, or is it maybe that overall that passionate level of support is just waning? >> well, i think it is the first two things. that last one is the question that i have. how much of the thrill is gone? this is not the first time that donald trump around these indictments has called for large protests and they haven't shown up. when he got indicted, he would post the same things and people generally didn't do anything. i imagine if you watched what happened on january 6th, you're a little hesitant to go out and maybe replay that. let's not kid ourselves. donald trump still has enormous sway over the republican grassroots. he's also always been able to take advantage of these situations, and play victim.

and if he's somehow not able to capitalize, not play victim in a way that benefits him here, that's problematic for him. because as we all know, this is not the only trial he's going to have. he's going to spend a significant amount of the rest of the year doing this. and this is just washing over his supporters, if they're not paying attention, if he's not able to capitalize on it, it could be a big problem for him. i think the jury is still out on that. we haven't seen enough polling since this all began. but it is the key question to watch out for, because it is going to be with us all year. >> there was a poll, let me put it in a little bit of context for you. the largest crowd so far down at the manhattan court and it wasn't large, by the way, was last monday, for the start of the trial, and one of the organizers last monday attributed the small turnout to people having to work, to late notice, although the start of the trial had been known for many days, another participant suggested that people are just tired of the trials. could it be maybe that people are just tired of it all?

our latest nbc poll showed that election interest is lower this time than it has been at this particular moment for the last four presidential elections. are people just tired? >> they might be. i think all of us are worn down by it. that's maybe to his benefit that this all washes over. his supporters may not be rallying behind him, but it also may be a situation where people are just tuning him out and what was so beneficial to him is we couldn't take his eyes off of donald trump before. he blocked out the sun. he was all that we could talk about and i just, you know, you get the sense that's not happening this time. i do think though that this trial is probably the least important one for him going forward. it is a somewhat tortured legal theory, we already sort of know the underlying facts of what happened here. how the facts come out on january 6th and on his election interference trials i think will

be much more important, much more damning and could have influence on what happens. we all kind of know that donald trump is a bit of a sleazy guy. even his supporters know that. i think reliving what happened on january 6th could be much more damaging for him. >> dasha burns, thank you. brendan, you're going to stand by. we're going back to the trump trial. nbc's vaughn hillyard is outside the courthouse. i understand there is some conversation about how much money is paid for these stories and why. >> reporter: right. there are three of these catch and kill stories that the "national enquirer" and david pecker was behind. dino the doorman, the story was found to be 1,000% untrue and they talked to michael cohen about it, there was no truth to it, yet they ended up paying

dino the doorman $30,000 as part of an amended deal in which they would pay him for the exclusive rights in perpetuity. they would have the rights to the story forever. and if he were to go to another publication or speak publicly about his story, that he would in turn owe american media $1 million in damages. so, you're talking about the lengths they went to protect donald trump. what david pecker is saying is that they gave $30,000 to a man to not reveal a story and if he did reveal or talk about it publicly, he would owe them $1 million. and why he made this decision, david pecker tells prosecutors, i made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment to the campaign and to mr. trump. chris? >> vaughn hillyard, keep us posted there. there is a difference between embarrassment and fear that it would cost him the election as a nonlawyer, i'm saying. let's see where this goes.

thank you for that. criminal trials are great equalizer. whatever your background and in trump's case that's one of privilege and power, defendants must essentially sit and take it. defendants like trump have to listen to the prosecution, lay out the case for the accused as a criminal and then also listen to the witnesses back it up. as barack obama's one time chief strategist david axelrod puts it, you can see that realization etched in the former president's face, you could sense it in his frenetic comments to the reporters where trump robotically recited the words, witch hunt, scam, hoax, and did so with a trace of desperation and even fear. so, john, today, our reporters who are in court say that trump

had his eyes closed and seemed like he couldn't care less during the gag order hearing, but then when david pecker took the stand again and resumed his testimony, he was paying attention, he was talking about it with todd blanche, and as someone who spent yesterday in court, tell us about your observations and what you make of the observations today. >> yeah, i don't know how anyone could snooze through dino the doorman, the playboy model, and the porn actress. so this stuff is made for the tabloids. i guess it is fitting that you got a first witness who is a former tabloid executive. donald trump yesterday, again, as you suggested, the beginning of the trial, it was opening statements yesterday. sort of seemed pretty disengaged. he didn't even really look at the prosecutor, kind of stared ahead of him, while the prosecutor was talking and then as things picked up, as they were more about him, as they were more about the narrative and the facts that he is aware of, or allegedly aware of, he got much more intensely

interested. he watched david pecker walk into the courtroom, he watched david pecker in the witness box, that's what we're hearing from inside the courtroom today, very similarly. the other thing i noticed about trump yesterday is he kept looking at the jury. when they came in and out, which happens several times during any court session, he followed them very closely as they walked in and out of the jury box, looked at them in the jury box. not clear whether he's simply look for some sort of indication of how they're leaning or perhaps trying to intimidate a little bit, but had his eyes very focused on them in addition to pecker yesterday, i assume that will go on throughout the trial. >> david axelrod writes that trump is a man who is bred to believe the rules don't apply to him and presents himself as peerless and left to sit silently by edict of the court as a jury of his peers decides his fate. look, rachel maddow said this yesterday on our air, none of us are body language experts.

if you believe that is something that can be sort of read with certainty, but anyone, anyone on trial for a crime that could land them in prison, that in this case could impact the possibility of being elected president once again, you can see where it would be at the least wearying. i wonder how you read what we're seeing and hearing out of this trial. >> well, i think that this is particularly uncomfortable for someone like donald trump, who is always shielded himself with something in order to make him look greater. it was either his company, or his professes about his great wealth and acumen, how he knows how to do a deal, whether it is the oval office and the presidency. he's stripped of all that in a courtroom. he's sitting there, as you said, alone, at that table, particularly during side bars, which he has waived his right to

participate in. even his attorney that he's flanked by leave him at that moment to sit as any other defendant without any armor. it reminds me of oz in the wizard of oz, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. when you take that away, his posts, he can't hold his phone when he's a defendant and be able to post in real time to his truth social account, which is like a shield, it reveals how vulnerable he is. and he has to sit with that, in that way, for weeks. for the whole duration of this trial. >> you heard dasha talking about this earlier, we know this about donald trump, he loves to feed off the crowds. when he was doing big rallies and thousands and thousands of people were coming out, they were waiting in line for hours and hours and hours, i know jon has covered those. we have all covered them before. but talk about the difficulty on someone physically, mentally,

emotionally, he's running for president. he's meeting with the former prime minister of japan, but his life is not his own right now. >> sure. anybody who spent any time around donald trump knows he's someone manic. he talks a lot. he jumps back around from thing to thing and i guess we're seeing a little bit of that in a restrained way. the other thing about donald trump is that to great effect he's always created his own reality. talk about what happened with the election, and he's been able, for example, to convince millions of americans that the last election was stolen. it is part of being around donald trump is to believe into all of the things he says, he surrounds himself with yes men and we know all that. in a courtroom, of course, none of that matters. you're forced to face actual facts. i imagine it is a very sobering, difficult thing for him, for someone who is used to be able to control the narrative around him, to have other people talking about things in a way he can't interject, can't interrupt. i imagine it is somewhat

depressing for him. that's something he has to get used to as we talk about for the whole rest of this year with much higher stakes. >> you know, kimberly, upon day six, which this is, people in the courtroom are already saying it is lucky for donald trump that this isn't televised. what about day 16 or day 26, right? if that perception gets to voters, what it could mean. we all had opinions, based on experience, about what this might mean, but the truth is, none of us knows, again, on day 16 or 26, what donald trump might say or do or react to if he's exhausted, if he's frustrated, if he's angry and what it could mean for this trial. >> yeah, and i think it can only get increasingly worse. people aren't tuned into the presidential race yet as it is. and this is sort of donald trump's intrigue into this season. when they're deciding who they're going to vote for. they see someone who in court, his attorneys are angering the

judge, they see this story that is pretty easy to follow, as you said, about pinups and porn stars and door men and cash money being paid, is it a check. that's easy to follow. and that can't help but wear on him that this is the image that is being put forward as he wants to get out and be, you know, the big man on the campaign trail as we discussed. and that this could only spell bad news. it is not televised, but i think the fact that what is getting out is damaging enough to him. >> yeah, he reportedly was even unhappy with the way he looked in crt sketches. most people don't like the way they look in court sketches, so he's not alone in that. thank you, all, so much. up next, more pro-palestinian protesters arrested at prominent universities as columbia cancels in person classes again. a former u.n. official who teaches there will join us to talk about what she has seen on campus ahead. and a critical trump trial

testimony, david pecker, who worked with david pecker, will join me to weigh in on what we heard so far. that's coming up in our next hour. we heard so far that's coming up in our next hour ent ways of learning. so when minds grow, opportunities follow. ♪ what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com. here you go. is there anyway to get a better price on this? have you checked singlecare? before i pick up my prescription at the pharmacy, i always check the singlecare price. it's quick, easy, and totally free to use. singlecare can literally beat my insurance copay. go to singlecare.com and start saving today.

ego, the number one rated brand in cordless outdoor power brings you the select cut mower. customize the cut with three interchangeable blades. it cuts for over

an hour on a single charge. ego - exclusively at lowe's, ace and ego authorized dealers. colleges are on high alert today after a night of demonstrations on campuses throughout the country. students, faculty member, protesting the war in gaza, building encampments, urging constitutions to defest from israel. 150 protestors were arrested at nyu in a demonstration that turned violent last night. nypd says officers were pelted with bottles. the university asked the police to intervene after chants from the crowd. it underscores the challenges before university administrators right now, attempting to balance free speech with legitimate safety concerns. perhaps nowhere illustrates that

more than columbia university where protesters are camped out for a seventh day. the school announced all classes will shift to hybrid learning for the rest of the semester. joining us now, current adjunct professor. i'm sure this is upsetting to you. this is an institution you love, where you went, where you work. do you agree first of all with the decision to make classes remote? how serious is the threat on campus now? >> well, chris, i understand the decision that he took, but i absolutely hate it and the reason is because i don't see why professors and students who are there for one priority and the priority is to study and learn, why we should stay home or have to stay home or have to study online because students feel unsafe. i don't understand why those who are making them feel unsafe should be allowed to do that. it should be the opposite. it should go around the other way where we should be allowed

and feel comfortable being in person and any instigators or spoilers sending antisemitic messages, violent, hateful, they should be plucked out of the crowd. and the protestors themselves should tell them not to infiltrate their protests and spew messages of hate or make a hostile environment for those of us who are there for a specific reason. >> well, it is not just students. some columbia faculty have joined the demonstrations. not necessarily to say the support the palestinian cause or i'm anti israel but to support students' right to protest. it's a founding right to have debate, to have the right to protest, but i wonder in this very heightened and yes, dangerous environment, what you're hearing from your colleagues. >> you make a really great point. because for example, i am an adjunct professor allowed to speak my mind freely with no reprecussion i'm going to face

at the university and i appreciate that and the freedom of speech granted on the campus, but at the same time, a campus is a private institution. it's a private campus. it's not a public park. just like any workplace environment, i don't understand personally why students are allowed to create a hostile environment. if you have that in an office and someone was creating a hostile environment to the point where other employees couldn't pursue their work, well, then the person making that hostile environment would be the one rep remanded. on the professors who protested to be honest with you, it's not so much their statement. the part i frankly didn't understand is that while they would like to protect the students and i understand that and agree with protecting students as one of our number one goals as professors, in addition of course to teaching and guiding them, i didn't see them protesting to protect the jew students who have had slurs thrown at them, flags burned. where they have students on campus who are in contact with

extremists who are coming to the outside of the columbia gates and protesting in even louder, more hateful ways. that's the part i don't understand. if you want to protect those students, great, but they all need to be protected equally. >> that's the here and now and it's significant but looking forward, what's your concern about where this goes from here? >> yeah, it's really hard to say how it ends, chris. you have two issues now going on. first, you have exams coming up and these protesters have been extremely loud all day and disruptive. they are stationed right outside the main library on top of it. but you hear them across the campus. so that's one problem. the second is that they're protesting against graduation and the graduation takes place exactly where they are located. so at a certain point, this is going to come to a head. either they're going to be forced off campus so that columbia can go ahead with it commencements there or they're going to have to find locations around the city.

again, i think that would be the wrong move. >> thank you so much. we really appreciate your insights and your time for coming on today. thank you. coming up, was former president trump urged to return classified documents nearly a year before that mar-a-lago raid? the damning allegations inside newly unsealed fbi documents. but first, you can watch all the best parts of our show anytime on youtube. stay close. we've got more chris jansing reporting right after this. chrg reporting right after this not flossing well? then add the whoa! of listerine to your routine. new science shows listerine is 5x more effective than floss at reducing plaque above the gumline. for a cleaner, healthier mouth. ahhhhh. listerine. feel the whoa! (vo) you've had thyroid eye disease for a long time. and you've lived with the damage it caused. but even after all these years, restoration is still possible. learn how at tedhelp.com.