hello again. it is 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm ana cabrera reporting in new york. jose diaz-balart should be with us in just a moment. technical difficulties. but right now, want to bring you up to speed, the court is in morning recess in former president donald trump's hush money trial, which is now in its 15th day. manhattan district attorney alvin bragg is in the courtroom for today's proceedings and nbc

news has learned through multiple sources that former president donald trump's attorney michael cohen will begin his testimony on monday. and is expected to be on the stand for several days. let's discuss more about all of this with nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard, who is outside the courthouse in lower manhattan. also joining us, catherine christian, former manhattan assistant district attorney, who is an msnbc legal analyst. vaughn, break right now, but set the scene for what has happened so far this morning. >> reporter: yeah, good morning, ana. madeleine westerhout, the executive assistant to donald trump in the first two and a half years at the white house, she wrapped up her testimony, finishing questioning from the defense attorneys for donald trump and then since we have had an employee, an analyst from at&t as well as verizon who are used by the prosecution to enter into evidence phone records that show the communications, the

phone calls that took place between michael cohen and others, it was not the contents of the calls, but it was the mere fact of how long phone calls took. and now we're currently in the morning recess here as we await the jury to re-enter the room, and an additional witness to be called before we anticipate michael cohen being that marquee witness to come next week here. currently as you and i speak, ana, there is deliberation over a 1999 clip, donald trump interview on "larry king live" that is currently being deliberated on by judge merchan, that the defense attorneys for donald trump want to not allow the prosecution to bring before the jury. and it was a particular line from that interview in which donald trump, i'll read it for you, said, quote, i think nobody knows more about campaign finance than i do because i'm the biggest contributor. the defense team saying this is irrelevant to the case, the prosecution making the case to judge merchan that it is completely relevant because it

shows that donald trump understood that corporations are not able to finance and contribute directly to a presidential campaign. judge merchan indicated that he will rule on that later today. again, we're waiting for the next witness to be called as well as the jury to be welcomed back into this courthouse on this friday, ana. >> vaughn, stand by. catherine, we have now heard from a couple of witnesses today about phone records including michael cohen's phone records as well as allen weisselberg's. why is the prosecution putting michael cohen's phone records into evidence before he testifies. >> more corroboration. who did he call, keith davidson. who is he? he's stormy daniels' lawyer. he had contact with dylan howard. text messages, emails. there will be no texts or emails from donald trump, we know that. but, again, before michael cohen testifies, they want basically almost everything that he's going to testify to corroborated. when he says i called so and so, they called me, they'll have those records there. and i text this person, they

emailed me, they have those records there. so members of the jury, you don't have to take michael cohen's word for it, we had a representative from verizon here to testify to that. so that's -- these are important witnesses. boring but very important witnesses. >> some different dynamics we're seeing from both attorneys, teams, the prosecution was objecting a lot to some of the questions that trump's attorneys were asking madeleine westerhout, the former white house aide, different from what we saw from the defense's few objections during stormy daniels' testimony. what do you make of this? >> yeah, you know what, it is also style quite frankly. every lawyer is different. and they -- the defense should have objected more during stormy daniels' testimony. a lot of details came out where the judge had to basically say objection sustained because the judge is not a potted plant. the judge has a role there. and in this case, what the defense were doing for westerhout was trying to use her

to basically corroborate that donald trump wasn't so hands on in that, you know, yes, he sent an email with a photo to weisselberg, but he did that to a lot of people. so they were trying to tamp down what her role was for the prosecution, which was to show that this is a hands on person and even after he got in the white house, he still had contact with weisselberg and cohen. >> okay, catherine, vaughn, stand by. jose diaz-balart is in place, take it away, my friend. >> thank you so very much. and we continue our analysis and our conversations. i want to bring in scott sundby, a jury researcher with us today. so, scott, i just want to start by asking i now that there is a break in the courtroom, on what is it that the jury sees when they go from a stormy daniels,

and then westerhout to now an at&t specialist to give you an understanding of what smsi means, how does the jury relate to that? >> i think most jurors are going to be looking at that as something that the lawyers are doing for the judge's benefit in many ways. and as catherine was saying, this is setting the evidentiary foundation for the phone calls to come in, which are going to be essential to corroborating cohen. and, eventually, i think that they'll see how it ties back up. but i'm sure that they're scratching their head, they may be enjoying a little bit of a break from having to listen to some far more entertaining details, but far more intensive, right? >> catherine, the prosecution as we were just talking about this, they did object to a lot of questions of trump's attorneys were asking westerhout, madeleine westerhout different from how the defense acted and the objections that they did or did not bring up during stormy

daniels' testimony. what do you make of that? >> you know, the defense, in that case, was miss necheles should be been objecting more to the stormy daniels testimony. it is just -- when i say style, there are different prosecutors have different witnesses and different defense attorneys have different. so, there is nothing wrong with objecting. if you believe a question is irrelevant, or is going to bring out inadmissible testimony, you should object, whether you're the prosecution or the defense. i wouldn't take it like a tit for tat, who objected more. it really doesn't say much about, you know, what is going on. >> catherine, how would you, i guess, rate the amount of objections that we have seen from the prosecution and then from the defense as far as vis-a-vis other kind of criminal trials. is this -- are there less objections by the defense, something that even juan

merchan, the judge, mentioned to the defense. >> well, there were -- for just stormy daniels' witness, they objected a lot before. so, i have to say, from -- different trials, different defense attorney styles and different prosecution styles, my style as a prosecutor was to only object when something was clearly irrelevant and ined as mible inadmissible and over the line, because i didn't want the jury to think i was hiding something from them. if it is something the defense was trying to elicit, already ruled upon, you better believe i was standing up and objecting. there are different styles. i don't think you can say how many objections, how many from prosecution, and then rate that. i think this is case normal. people are upset. people are commenting on the opening statement that the prosecution objected and that's unheard of, you know, it is not unheard of. at least in new york state court practice, and in that

courthouse, defense attorneys will make openings and prosecutors will object because, you know, they go to the line. and there is nothing wrong with that. and the jury is not saying, oh, my goodness, the prosecution objected, the defense must have done something bad because if that's the case, then they're going to be looking at the prosecution and saying, you know, when the defense objects, uh-oh, the prosecution might be doing something bad. i think jurors are much more sophisticated, instructed on the law, and just to focus on the evidence, not, you know, counting the score card about how many objections each side has made. >> and so, scott, madeleine westerhout admitted to prosecutors she spoke with trump's lawyer, susan necheles, two nights ago. is it unusual for a prosecution witness to meet with defense attorneys? >> really depends on the state and the situation. in florida, we actually have depositions of witnesses that defense attorneys can take, so, you know, that would be in a much more formal setting. as far as i am aware, i think

that is rather unusual, that someone who is a prosecution witness is meeting with the defense attorney, there is nothing that ethically keeps them from being able to do that. but usually each side sort of views their witnesses as their witnesses, right? and carefully instruct them that you don't have to talk to the other side, you can, if you want, but you don't have to. >> so, right now, we were hearing from vaughn hillyard just at the top of this hour how there was a discussion between the prosecution, defense and the judge about a cnn interview that trump did with larry king when talking about, you know, all kinds of issues of election issues and election law and merchan right now as a matter of fact is coming back and saying i understand what you're saying about the laws of 1999, compared to 2015, to 2017, so i will side with the defense on this. we have two more witnesses, the judge says, how long do you expect this to go? mangold said, oh, about an hour.

merchan, so, we will work until a bit after 1:00, or 1:00, so we don't need to come back after lunch today. so, scott, let's take it to the jury. and the jury is hearing, as i say, from this -- catherine was talking about how boring, but important testimony and i think that somebody from at&t explaining what, you know, a chip, a sim chip is, and how it works is certainly not of the interest to most people. what is it that you, as a prosecutor, keep in mind when you're bringing up these different witnesses who have peaks and valleys, i guess, of storytelling? >> yeah, you know, storytelling is exactly right, jose. i mean, and the best attorneys, whether prosecutors or defense attorneys, are master storytellers. and one of the things that is so

challenging as an attorney is we are used to giving a narrative, right? if we tell a story, certainly when i teach, right, i'm able to, you know, weave chronologically as it fits me. lawyers have to call witnesses to tell their stories. they get the opening, they get the closing, but in between you're calling, like calling characters out of a novel an saying tell us what you know about this, and it doesn't necessarily flow real smoothly, and it can be very difficult to sort of construct that narrative in a way that the jury would understand. these less sexy witnesses, if we can put it that way, are, you know, they're probably interspersing them in part because we had stormy daniels, which had, i'm sure, the jury riveted, we will have michael cohen as i understand it, which will have the jury riveted. so, for a half day on a friday, this is a chance to almost do some evidentiary book keeping,

if you will, for the prosecution. we have to get this in, these are going to be important, you know, to tie up michael cohen had those phone numbers, and was calling them, but it is part of sort of the background story that the prosecution has to get in to get to the main story. >> and catherine christian and scott sundby, we're going to take a short break as the judge is ordering the jury to come back in the courtroom. we'll bring that to you right after a quick break. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. b. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine.

talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer.

15 past the hour. right now in new york city, the court has returned for morning recess in trump's hush money trial. the prosecution just called the next witness, georgia longstreet, a paralegal for the manhattan district attorney's office. to yasmin vossoughian outside the courthouse. this is a witness that was already called up by the prosecution just recently. >> reporter: yeah, she was called up last friday. she testified last friday before hope hicks took the stand. georgia longstreet is a paralegal in the manhattan d.a.'s office, much of her testimony the last time around, i'm expecting it to be similar this time around, of course, setting up for michael cohen. it seems like georgia longstreet, she takes the stand, setting up for major witnesses to come as we saw hope hicks to

take the street after georgia longstreet with stormy daniels who took the stand throughout the week, this week. georgia longstreet, her responsibilities inside of the manhattan d.a.'s office is part of scouring social media, she talked about scouring thousands and thousands of social media posts. we know much of donald trump's social media, some admitted for evidence, for instance, if you go after me, i'm going to go after you, we know for instance georgia longstreet could testify to the point of scouring social media once again. the way in which she came upon some of the social media posts, specifically pertaining to michael cohen, this record keeping, book keeping, how we got stuff, setting up for some major testimony that we're going to be getting from michael cohen starting next week, jose. >> thank you very much, yasmin. i want to bring back with us former assistant manhattan district attorney catherine christian, law professor scott sundby, the university of miami, joining us ashley parker, senior national political correspondent

for "the washington post" and msnbc political analyst. so, i'm just wandering, ashley, this is now a paralegal who was brought back to talk about social media posts and how they scour the internet. it is something that the former president is quite adept at. >> it is. and it is something that is frequently -- it is a double-edged sword for him. in some ways his social media presence helped fuel his political rise, you know, especially when he was president, when he would tweet things. the media, i think, correctly took them as statements from the president, as press releases, as if they had come out from the white house press office or the white house communications office, but it is also the thing that voters really didn't like, waking up in the morning. i talked to voters who recall -- came up in the morning and not knowing what he would have tweeted starting at 5:00 a.m.,

6:00 a.m., what potentially offensive thing they might have to at the breakfast table answer questions about from 9 or 10-year-old daughter, their teenage son. and in certain ways, this is a way from the trial, but it is worth noting the fact that trump is no longer on x, the platform previously known as twitter, is actually a big -- he may not love it, but it is a big political benefit for him because the challenge for democrats is reminding voters everything they didn't like about donald trump, all that chaos that made them choose competent, quote, unquote, boring as trump would say pejoratively but they liked sleepy joe biden and there is a bit of amnesia. when he's not going crazy on social media, which as you point out, he's so adept at, that's a bit harder. >> yeah, and i want to talk to you more a little bit about that, going forward, but i want to bring you back into the courtroom there now, longstreet is being asked questions by

mangold and among the things that they're trying to re-establish is just what kind of information longstreet deals with on a daily basis and the question by mangold, you deal with material obtained in response to subpoenas? longstreet, yes. mangold, analyzing contact info, yes, and matching call records relative to the cause, multiple formats. mangold, are the records in different formats and in different time zones? longstreet, yes. how many text message pages? longstreet, 500 total. and i did about 100. how much contact information have you reviewed? mangold asks. longstreet, 300 to 500 pages. personally i reviewed about 100 to 200 of those pages. so, catherine, once again, the reason to bring her back on the

stand, after having her there last friday, to essentially just explain what she does is for what? >> it is to establish, because they're going to -- i see one of the exhibits is donald trump's twitter handle, his then twitter handle, to establish again the authentication, the chain of custody, how nothing was altered. when this paralegal and the paralegals in the d.a.'s office are very experienced in scouring through text messages, emails, and social media. so, when they put up, you know, a tweet, from donald trump, they will know that the prosecution, this is the real tweet, the prosecution didn't alter it, or any -- in any way, this was taken by the paralegal, members of the jury, you heard testify directly off the web, it wasn't because, you know, you can, you know, alter tweets and make false photo shop, so, the reason

why you called these witnesses to show it wasn't altered, it wasn't tampered, this is the original. and so this is all preparing for the testimony of witnesses who are going to talk about this tweet from donald trump. and the same with the verizon and the at&t representatives. the call logs, call logs are the list of phone calls that were made from a phone or received to a phone. so, that's, again, to corroborate michael cohen when he says he spoke to this one and that one, and the particular day and time too is very important. >> scott, what is with the having to authenticate tweets and emails? what is that all about? >> so, that's the boring part of evidence law class. but the essential part -- one of the essential parts of evidence, because, of course, what we want to do is make sure, just even apart from the jury, right, that the evidence, which is coming in is, in fact, reliable.

and that it is something which is trustworthy and evidence law has quite a few rules as to what can come in and what cannot. oftentimes, and i don't know the practice in new york city, i would be curious of a lot of ev is often stipulated to by each side. here, clearly, they're having to cross every t and dot every i. >> whose logic is that following? >> to stipulate? >> yeah. every single issue. >> so, i don't know if that is the general practice in new york. it may be that that is the custom, certainly not the custom i'm used to. you always have to establish the basis for the evidence that you want to introduce, but it does seem like every t, every i is having to be crossed and dotted in a way that i think most cases at least i'm familiar with, a lot of that would be agreed to by the attorneys, that these are

authentic records and all. so, and maybe the prosecution wants to make sure the jury is hearing that as catherine said, you know, this is donald trump's tweet, right? there is not going to be any dispute because jurors will raise questions on their own, if sometimes you're not crossing those ts and dotting the is. >> i want to ask you about that, how the procedure normally is in new york, as i explained it right now there is a people's exhibit 407f being shown to the jury and it is one of donald trump's tweets. and it is the new york time and the third rate reporter maggie haberman and then goes on to insult her who i don't speak to and don't have anything to do with are going out of their way to destroy michael cohen and his relationship with me in the hope he will flip. they used nonexistent sources and a, you know, again, just goes on and on to talk disparagingly about people. the interesting thing, among others, is that maggie haberman is in the courtroom right now as

this tweet is being up there. catherine, you know, what is the need to authenticate something like this, when it is pretty much out there and also is that normal procedure? >> it is in new york and that courthouse, defense attorneys don't stipulate and prosecutors are prepared to have their paralegal, to have their verizon representatives, to come and testify. and quite frankly, i like to do that. i wanted the jury to know, listen, members of the jury, this is authentic. it wasn't altered or tampered with, you know. look at how careful the prosecution was in gathering this evidence, and putting it before you. so, no, in that courthouse, defense attorneys do not stipulate. and that office, those prosecutors are used to that. that's just -- that's how it is done. i mean, it would be such an easy life as a prosecutor in manhattan if everything was stipulated to. it is not. and we were prepared and trained to you better bring in these

witnesses to get this evidence into the jury's hands and the way to do that is to have that witness go through the train of custody, how it wasn't altered or tampered with. so, other jurisdictions, everyone might be warm and fuzzy and get along very well, but it is really litigation in manhattan. >> yasmin vossoughian, outside the courthouse. now they're actually showing another tweet from the former president and another one. what is going on there? >> reporter: so, a few things, jose, i want to point out here. one of the reasons why d.a..al alvin bragg is in the courthouse right now is because georgia longstreet is testifying, he was there the last time as well, to give you color of why the d.a. is there in the first place. a couple of things about these tweets. you read through the tweet you just read, about michael cohen, and which they talk about maggie

haberman and saying they're out to destroy michael cohen, his relationship with me in hopes he's going to flip, these nonexistent sources and a loser who hates michael, a fine person with a wonderful family, that was in april of 2018, jose, right? juxtapose that to four months later in 2018 where michael cohen pled guilty and alleged in a court of law that donald trump instructed him to pay stormy daniels and karen mcdougal, hence setting off the manhattan d.a.'s investigation, then under cy vance, which went to alvin bragg when cy vance retired and now we are where we are. it is interesting to look at the timeline, why they feel it is important to set up the tweets specifically, and also how quickly it was the former president, and i think this is part of the reason why the prosecution is bringing these tweets up, how quickly it was the former president changed his tune when it came to michael cohen. >> yeah, i mean, so, you know,

we're talking april 21st, 2018, michael is a fine person with a wonderful family. april 21st, 2018, august 22nd, 2018, quote if anyone is looking for a good lawyer, i would strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of michael cohen. ashley, let's talk about michael cohen and his role and his importance and his relationship with donald trump as a candidate. even previous to being a candidate, and while in the white house. >> so, michael cohen was donald trump's fixer. that's a role he had long held in the trump organization, and was sort of, you know, to put it in casual terms, he was sort of his muscle, his heavy. the one who would call people, whether that was reporters during the campaign, or business associates, and kind of pressure them in a pretty unpleasant way

to do what donald trump wanted them to do. during the campaign, which i covered the 2016 campaign, he wasn't someone who had an official role, but he was always present. he is from a reporter's point of view, because it was a small campaign, it was a family business kind of ramping into a political operation, it is worth noting that michael cohen fully expected and hoped to come to the white house with donald trump. donald trump, you can just look at the people he surrounded himself with, he brought in a lot of people, who weren't necessarily professional, who weren't necessarily what you would think of as the people who would traditionally be running the highest realms of the federal government, of the white house, and even among all of that, there was a sense that michael cohen could not possibly make it into the white house. >> and, you know, another exhibit they're now showing from the 3rd of may, 2018, about, you

know, from the president, mr. cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign. and having nothing do with very common among celebrities and people of wealth, in this case, it is in full force and effect, despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting there was no affair prior, a violation by mrs. clifford scott. when you are looking at juries and what it is that one can do to best position one's self, defense or prosecution, right, with these jurors, insistence on this and contradictions in what is certifiably proven to be the former president's actual tweets, how effective and necessary is that? >> so, it is interesting, as those tweets are being read, i was thinking in this age of social media how much the

practice of law in many ways has changed. and in some ways reading those tweets out loud, right, and once you verify that they are in fact donald trump's tweets, it is like a de facto cross examination of donald trump. isn't it true you at one time said -- these aren't questions being posed to him, but the tweets are serving that role of saying, yes, at one time i said he was great, he was honest, and now i'm changing my tune. >> and, without having him on the stand, you're actually saying this is -- we certify that this is what you said, but this is how you changed your tune. it is interesting because the importance of donald trump testifying or not, in some ways is mitigated by this? >> well, it was striking, as i was hearing that, yasmin read those tweets, this is the type of question and answer you would want to be able to ask on cross examination as the prosecutor,

to bring out how donald trump has praised him, and, of course, they're going to hammer michael cohen on all sors of inconsistencies, but we're going to have praise from donald trump, right, and seeing him turn on a dime, when all of a sudden it didn't do it. and donald trump is famous, and many people who are his followers, are, like, well, i love he speaks his mind, he's unfiltered. this is maybe going to somewhat come back to haunt him when we're reading his tweets. most jurors is, like, yeah, he really was defending michael cohen. this wasn't, well, it was a tweet, maybe he didn't really mean it. when donald trump tweets, i think we tend to think, yeah, that's right what's on his mind. it is unfiltered. so, it does provide an avenue into that type of questioning and trying that didn't exist, certainly 15 years ago, ten years ago even. >> starting to age ourselves here. >> yes.

>> ashley parker, a treat to speak with you and always so much interesting stuff that you bring us. i thank you, ashley, for being with us this morning and everyone else, if you would, stand by, because up next, how the trial is or is not impacting trump's run for the white house. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. u. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. zyrtec allergy relief works fast and lasts a full 24 hours so dave can be the... deliverer of dance. ok, dave! let's be more than our allergies. zeize the day with zyrtec. my mental health was better. but uncontrollable movements called td, tardive dyskinesia, started disrupting my day. td felt embarrassing. i felt like disconnecting. i asked my doctor about treating my td, and learned about ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪ ingrezza is clinically proven for reducing td. most people saw results in just two weeks. people taking ingrezza can stay on most mental health meds.

only number-one prescribed ingrezza has simple dosing for td: always one pill, once daily. ingrezza can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have thoughts of suicide. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including angioedema, potential heart rhythm problems, and abnormal movements. report fevers, stiff muscles, or problems thinking as these may be life threatening. sleepiness is the most common side effect. take control by asking your doctor about ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪ so this is pickleball? it's basically tennis for babies, but for adults. it should be called wiffle tennis. pickle! yeah, aw! whoo! ♪♪ these guys are intense. we got nothing to worry about. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right?

got him. good game. thanks for coming to our clinic, first one's free. (ella) fashion moves fast. thanks for coming to our clinic, setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time.

(jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon.

it's a beautiful... ...day to fly. wooooo! 37 past the hour. right now, georgia longstreet, a

paralegal for the manhattan d.a.'s office, is back on the stand, on day 15 of the new york criminal trial of donald trump. back with us, outside the courthouse, nbc's vaughn hillyard. also with us, catherine christian and scott sundby. now they're going over in the courtroom a series of texts back and forth. tell us about what this is all about. >> reporter: right, they're entering into the record texts between dylan howard of the "national enquirer" and gina rodriguez, working as the manager for stormy daniels. what georgia longstreet is doing is being the conduit for entering into as evidence not only the text messages, but also several tweets of donald trump, particularly right now ones from 2018. ones that came after it was revealed that stormy daniels $130,000 arrangement with michael cohen and part of that on may 3rd, 2018, of course this was just months after first

publicly reported, this arrangement, there was a three-tweet thread that donald trump said in part, mr. cohen, an attorney received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign, and had nothing to do -- having nothing do with the campaign from which he entered into through reimbursement of private contract between two parties known as a nondisclosure agreement or nda. these agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth. in this case, it is in full force and effect. we knew the prosecution wanted to highlight this series of tweets here from donald trump about michael cohen, because he directly acknowledged that there was a retainer agreement that was entered into through reimbursement, among two different parties, it was not him explicitly saying it was just michael cohen, there was another tweet, from august 22nd of 2018, in which he was talking about paul manafort who had entered in -- refused to enter into a plea agreement with the department of justice, he says i feel badly for paul manafort, continuing, unlike michael

cohen, he refused to break. make up stories in order to get a deal. such respect for a brave man. so, these are the types of messages that are now being entered into the record here for this jury here. >> and, vaughn, you know, among the tweets also now the series of texts between howard, dylan howard and gina rodriguez. and the texts back and forth include some things about what or was not the relationship between donald trump and stormy daniels. among other things, and we're just going through some of the texts that are -- just been entered into evidence here, even though longstreet says that partial -- parts of these texts have been redacted, and i just wonder what parts they would be redacted because what we're seeing is that, for example, april 7th, 2016, from rodriguez to dylan howard, stormy daniels

was his mistress. but i bet she was, the response to the text, can you email me what you have on that? yes, i will send you what i have. great. continuing these texts, okay, stormy daniels, i have her, is she ready to talk? i thought she denounced it previously. she said she will do it under two conditions. she never did. she doesn't want to go on record about it, put will tell the story through a source. she will take, a, that's redacted. she had sex with him. she wants $100,000. is it a once or ongoing relationship? these are the texts going back and forth in real time back then between dylan howard and gina rodriguez. rodriguez answers to the question, was it once or an ongoing relationship? rodriguez says she met him at a celebrity golf tournament. then, another batch of texts, in he word on stormy? this from the 29th of june,

2016. >> the answer, i haven't got to discussing with the chief. on the 23rd of july, almost a month later, what happened with the stormy daniels interview on trump? answer, let's discuss this week. july 23rd, same day, 2016, okay, she's asking. let's talk face to face. okay, what day this week? i'm there sunday night through wednesday. maybe thursday. let's meet on thursday. catherine, again, what they're establishing as a conversation between two people that we are now all privy to, what is the importance of this conversation when it is not between anyone who was directly related to or had an association with donald trump other than what we have found out the relationship between donald trump, pecker, howard and the "national enquirer." >> well, it is relevant to

miss daniels. you have her manager, miss rodriguez and the "national enquirer" editor in chief dylan howard speaking about her story, which she testified to and on cross they were trying to say, it is not true, you to didn't have sex, but it is also relevant the time period goes all the way up until october. and how the story was being rolled out and getting ready to go, and then "access hollywood" comes out in and october, right after that, she is ready, stormy daniels, to spill what happened, but then the -- had to move in and silence her. so, this corroborates her, it corroborates david pecker, it corroborates michael cohen, it establishes that not whether or not she did or didn't have sex with donald trump, but she had a story about that she did and it was worth something and there was an agreement that she would get paid to make sure they did not reveal that before the

election. so, corroborates that piece of the prosecution's theory. >> and also, scott, the fact that, you know, earlier in the july 2016 texts going back and forth, there was talk of -- that she wanted $100,000 for her story and then we take you back now forward, i should say, to october of 2016, specifically a new batch of texts where she's going, he will likely pay. yes, i'll send you. okay. how much for stormy? 250k. you have that bid? yes, i'm working on it. gma wants her too. can you email me the pitch on stormy? i need to elevate it to my ceo. that would be the ceo of "national enquirer." scott, what are you seeing here? >> so, it is interesting again how they are so carefully

corroborating. i think catherine's exactly right, in some ways not that she needed rehabilitation, but what they're doing is they're bolstering stormy daniels' testimony yesterday saying, hey, listen, this isn't just her saying on the stand that these negotiations were going on, they're also reminding the jury, which is important, because, remember, they -- we get the bits and pieces in, right? we don't get to weave the flawless narrative that every lawyer wishes they could just tell the jury. here's what we could prove, right? and do it. they have to do it witness by witness. and this is reminding them of all that testimony that they heard a week or so ago, right, between pecker and howard and all these people as to, yes, these were actual ongoing negotiations and it adds credence to stormy's testimony, right, that, you know, i wanted to get the story out at this point, i had the nda, and this is the type of conversation that

i was having with my manager was having with -- >> so, catherine, as scott was talking about how, you know, you must weave a story, right, to tell to the jury, this part of it almost seems like it's counter -- it is a reaction to the fact that they just had someone from at&t talking about what a sim chip is. >> well, yeah. so they will end -- the judge said they're ending the day at 1:00, and they'll come back monday and i understand that mr. cohen is supposed to be scheduled. so, yes, you're ending it with a little meaty, much more interesting. this is very important, obviously, but it is not sim chips and call logs and call detail. it is very substantive. and, again, it is as stewart said, it is rehabilitating in many ways miss daniels and just

corroborating basically what she said. >> also, i want to bring in stewart stevens, mitt romney's chief strategist for 2012 and a senior adviser at the lincoln project, and former democratic congresswoman donna edwards of maryland, an msnbc political analyst. just talking, donna, as you see this, what is going on in the courtroom, there are so many kind of split screen moments that we have been watching over these last couple of weeks, between what the president of the united states is involved in and what he's doing and what he's saying, and what the former president and current candidate for president of the united states has been dealing with inside that courtroom. does that split screen weigh more every single day? >> i think it is a really complicated environment for the former president. after all, he's spending four days a week in a courtroom.

we're getting a lot of the secondhand redux of what's going on in that courtroom. and the president of the united states, joe biden, is out there on the campaign trail, opening up campaign offices, all across the country, and really running as a candidate for re-election, while the former president is, you know, we have to listen to all of the, you know, salacious details of what happened with stormy daniels and the relationship to the -- to the business records. so, i think it is -- it is a tough environment. and for the former president, and he has very little to go on when it comes to getting out on the campaign trail. >> yes, stewart, i mean, donald trump is such an unusual political being, right? just the fact that, you know, what he was able to accomplish in 2016, it is almost as though -- we were speaking with ashley parker about just how the

folks that he brought into the oval office to the white house and to the administration were people that had really no experience in the past, with anything to do with, you know, government or governance. is this, you think, something that is going to continue to damage donald trump as a candidate, as the days progress and as we see more and more batches of text messages between people about stormy daniels and michael cohen and all these other issues? >> you know, when i worked for george bush in 2000, the single message that worked by far the best for us was restoring honor and dignity to the white house. and that was after the clinton scandal. and that is nothing compared to this. you know, i think there is something that has a corrosive

effect on donald trump and his character, the lack of character, is this someone you really want to look up to in the white house? to the degree that donald trump is defining himself as a victim, it helps with those, i don't think that's helping with anybody who isn't already for donald trump and everybody gets to vote once. and there is sort of the absurdity of donald trump's defense here, that he is the first man in history to pay $130,000 to a porn star, not to have sex. i mean, is that really credible? so, i think this is very good for president biden and bad for donald trump. >> there are so many instances, comments comments that i'm taken back to something i would have probably believed to have seen in a movie with salvador dahli. but to see it in a courtroom in

america in 2024 -- it is different. i want to bring you all back to one of the texts that are being discussed now in the courtroom. we are talking about a batch of texts from october 9, 2016. they are talking back and forth again, dylan howard and gina rodriguez about "the daily mail" was interested in stormy daniels' story. howard says, i will buy it, but i ain't got 250k. i can get 100. she says, what about 150k? he says, 110. next batch of texts, 125k. then lol, 120? back, sold. do you have understanding these all are texts october 8 in new

york time? that would be east coast time zone. longstreet, yes. go back right into the texts. same october 9. i'm at dinner. i will email contract when i'm back at the hotel or by first thing in the a.m. okay. "daily mail" is offering 200. next batch. i haven't told them anything except what i put in the email yesterday. i have not responded. the next day's batch of texts include, never heard from you. stormy leaves tomorrow to go back home. d.m. wants it, too. okay, i will call you. scott, the back and forth is showing the evolution -- i mean, this stuff is -- this looks like one of those auctions that go on -- >> so transactional, isn't it?

there's a price in the free market we can put on how much it's worth to keep the story buried. it really is almost like watching the stock market ticker go. >> an auction for -- i don't know for what. i'm wondering, again, what is it then that the jury is to take away from this? >> i'm sure that the jurors are processing that there is a basis for -- a factual basis for actually not just stormy's testimony as to what was happening -- she clearly was a part of this negotiations from the text messages, had is very -- which is very helpful, she also had firsthand knowledge how this was handled. but to the extent it's a business transaction, it's very much emphasizing this notion that the trump campaign was

eager, through ami, to keep this buried. >> donald trump's attorney is picking up with the re-cross. he starts, to take you right into the courtroom, good morning, ms. longstreet. we spoke last friday. i won't re-ask you about the answers you give. you reviewed thousands of tweets. you didn't select the ones to put up. the folks on my right selected them? yes, that is correct. blanche -- this is literally what's being written by our folks inside the courtroom as it is being heard. blanche is asking longstreet, so you did not do mr. cohen's tiktok?

longstreet, no. currently, no. you are no aware of what he posted the other night? longstreet, i am not. again, scott, this is the defense saying, okay, so we're going through a lot of tweets and truth social and texts of people that are not -- i mean truth social tweets were directly by the then president. but these other texts are not related directly to the president. but, why didn't you look at tiktok? >> it's fascinating. i don't know if catherine is having the same sense of vertigo in a way as to watching a trial that revolves so much around social media. in some ways, the witnesses are creating records for each side. right? clearly, there's a tiktok posting -- >> or a series. >> or a series, that's going to be used on the cross of cohen

when he testifies. not that lawyers' jobs weren't complicated enough, but it adds another extra later. i not only debrief my witness, find out about physical corroboration, i have to look at social media. >> i want to bring in jeffrey swartz, a former judge who is a professor now. i thank you for being with us. your thoughts today on what has been going on in the courtroom from the at&t specialist to talk to you about chips to now longstreet going over some of the different exchanges and text messages and tweets and tiktoks. >> i'm at a loss. i understand that at this point and throughout the trial the defense refused to stipulate to the entrance of records like these. this is where in most cases the

kind of evidence that a judge could get both sides to stipulate to. although, i think merchan is not sticking his nose into this. it's very obvious, as we have seen as with other things that have happened in this trial, that mr. trump has had a substantial affect on his lawyers and what they do and what they can and cannot do. i think this is just satisfying mr. trump that you are not giving in to anything, you are not agreeing to anything. this is the way i want it to be. >> scott, we are hearing about merchan and what he has been able to do. there has been a lot of talk about the gag order. i know you have a very important thought on that. >> yeah. i have been very impressed, once removed, with how judge merchan is handling this case and especially the contempt hearings.

it's important to keep in mind he has two objectives. i say this having gone back through his orders and statements. one is to make sure that this jury is protected in terms of its safety, foremost. you have the statements being read yesterday that my motto is to get even, right? you don't want them actually being in physical peril. one thing we have to keep in mind -- i was struck, because merchan talks constantly about, i have a job to do, and part of that job is to maintain the legitimacy and integrity of the judicial system. at one point he says, one of trump's violations was a direct attack on the rule of law. we depend, jose, in many ways on public confidence in the criminal justice system and in juries. we have seen the supreme court -- i think its stature has diminished greatly as it has been seen as politicized.

we get the constant attacks on the prosecutors and other judges. i really think the jurors are something different and that merchan gets this. they are simply answering a summons. this is the civic duty that at least i was raised to think, this is part of what you do as a u.s. citizen. >> in so many ways, it's almost unique to the united states, the rule of law. i know there are other countries that have juries, but not to this degree and this level. >> it goes back to our founding. heralded the american jury as an example of true democracy. we are grabbing 12 people off the street. can juries get wrong? that's a long conversation. the answer is clearly yes. we can improve the jury system. what really alarms me is the statements that trump and those who amplify him have made, that this is a corrupt jury. these are not jurors who are coming in and in good faith listening to the evidence and

will listen to each other. i will tell you, my experience has been that jurors take their oath very seriously. what i really fear is that we have diminished so many other institutions that whatever -- if donald trump is convicted, there's going to be 40% of the population that's going to say, it was a corrupt jury, it was a rigged jury. they didn't really listen to the evidence. i think once we start tearing down juries, we are really going down a slippery slope. >> stewart, donna, jeff, scott, thank you all so much for being with me. that wraps up the hour. i'm jose diaz-balart. thank you for the privilege of your time. anna cabrera picks up with more news right now. ♪♪ hello on this friday.