you wanted money. that phrase repeated multiple

times by donald trump's lawyer today as she grilled stormy daniels during cross examination trying to portray her as a liar and an extortionist out to shake down the former president. the trial just breaking for lunch moments ago, but earlier today daniels facing really tough questioning accused of fabricating the salacious story of her sexual encounter with donald trump, something she has repeatedly denied. and under direct, she said telling her story actually put her life in danger referencing trump's notorious social media posts saying, quote, if you go after me, i'm coming after me. daniel was asked who she thought trump was talking about. her response, i wasn't sure but i thought it was me. daniels is now finished after spending seven hours and 17 minutes on the stand, making way for rebecca manochio, a junior bookkeeper who worked as allen weisselberg's assistant. he was the chief financial officer at trump org.

i'm chris jansing reporting live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. for the next two hours we will update you with what exactly is going on in court. >> and i'm andrea mitchell, of course, joining you here. and i want to bring in msnbc's vaughn hillyard just outside the courthouse. a former federal prosecutor and legal affairs columnist with "politico," and back with us former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg and two other former manhattan assistant d.a.'s catherine christian and jeremy -- are here in the studio. >> so vaughn, how does rebecca manochio fill in the gaps that the prosecution is trying to tell? we've heard from numerous lawyers this is the heart of the case. it's not the story about this alleged encounter between donald trump and stormy daniels. it is, in fact, about the money that was paid. it was an illegal campaign contribution? were the books cooked essentially to misrepresent that money, so get us to the heart of

why she is so important. some might argue more important than some of the more sensational witnesses. >> reporter: right, for about the last 45 minutes, rebecca manochio who was the executive assistant to allen weisselberg at the trump organization is helping filling in some of those gaps, when we're talking about the chain of custody, about the execution of the reimbursement checks that went from donald trump's personal checking account to michael cohen, and she is testifying that while working for allen weisselberg, she would actually prepare the checks that the direction of debra terra soft and she would fedex those checks personally, ten to 20 of them at a time, in which those reimbursement checks to michael cohen, and she would then mail them to a personal address of keith schiller who worked as a bodyguard to donald trump, including in the first part of 2017. a personal address for keith schiller in washington, d.c.,

instead of the white house. she said she did not know why she sent it to a personal address, but she did. at that point in time when keith schiller left the white house in his capacity there, she then began emailing them to john mcentee who worked in a personnel capacity for donald trump. and then at that point they would then mail checks back to her, and she said if she did not receive a certain check that she was expecting, she would check in with madeleine westerhout, and at that point in time when she received the checks back in new york to the trump organization, she would then turn the checks back over to debra terra soft who would be the one to process the checks. there you go. it's the chain of custody, and she is filling in the gaps here for the jury about how the actual reimbursement checks made their way into the deposited account of michael cohen. >> rena toe, alan wees l berlg

berlg is back at rikers. is this junior bookkeeper the next best thing on the chain of custody of the signatures on these checks as they go back and forth, fedex to the white house? >> that's right, and she may actually be better because she's cooperative. she's not trying to help donald trump in the course of her testimony. she's not trying to throw any bombs. she's just telling it like it is, and really, as you just said a moment ago, andrea, this is really about those false statements and business records, and also, i think subtly trying to show that donald trump cared deeply about this matter, even after he became president of the united states. i mean, it is remarkable that the president of the united states was focused on getting checks over as hush money payments to stormy daniels during that period, and i think what they're trying to show is that you should believe michael

cohen when he tells you that donald trump was actually personally involved both in these payments and in the cover-up in the books and records of the trump organization.renato, if i can, tie these two witnesses together if i can, stormy daniels and now the bookkeeper. do jurors have to believe that donald trump had sex with stormy daniels as long as they believe that for whatever reason, it doesn't matter the reason that he tried to cook the books to cover it up, that essentially that he wanted to make it look like a legitimate campaign expense, and how far, then, are we from establishing that? >> reporter: great question, no, the jury doesn't actually have to believe it happened. if donald trump wanted to cover up this story, wanted this story to be kept from the public, it's really irrelevant whether or

not, you know, there was actually a particular act that took place in a hotel room at a particular time, and that's why really trump has actually hurt his own legal team here. a smart lawyer would have just stipulated to this and said, look, we'll stipulate that this occurred. we don't need to hear from stormy daniels. this is a case about falsification of business records. instead, they're getting into this fight with stormy daniels trying to attack her, i think it's going to get some sympathy from the jury, and i think the real question and what we're still going to see here is the evidence that trump was aware of the false statements and business records. >> i want to make sure that our -- the folks watching and all of us get that. stipulate means he would have had to say, yes, what she's going to testify to did indeed happen. >> that's right. and donald trump appears to be incapable of doing that. he also appears to be incapable

of permitting his lawyers to show some restraint with a witness, a woman who i would say can be very sympathetic to a lot of jurors. so instead they are fighting the underlying truth of this, which really is a side show for the purposes of the charges in this case, and they're attacking this witness today in very brutal fashion, and i think that ultimately is going to end up hurting donald trump's case. >> chuck rosenberg, let me ask you that question as to how close the prosecutors are to getting to the heart of the matter and proving the alleged, you know, the book keeping transaction, the fraudulent bookkeeping, the cover-up, if you will, that is the central charge of the case, the felony, not just the hush money payment, which is not a crime. >> that's right, andrea, and by the way, it's always good to go after renato, all i have to do is agree with him.

i have the easiest job on television. renato's completely right. and by the way, the closer you get to the paper, right, with witnesses who handled it who, you know, mailed it, who received it, who deposited it, who processed it, the closer you get to the central allegations of this case. whether or not mr. trump had sex with stormy daniels in a hotel room is largely irrelevant. catherine christian put it well earlier today. the case really comes down to -- i'm sorry, her role, stormy daniels' role, it really comes down to one sentence. was she paid money to remain quiet about an affair that she had with mr. trump and obviously paid just before the 2016 presidential election. it would be wonderful if mr. weisselberg were available and truthful and cooperative. apparently none of those things are true. the government would have to be very careful about immunizing someone like him and probably thinks that they have other ways

to prove the documents at issue in this case, the assistant bookkeeper, rebecca manochio is one such way. this is what they need to prove. stormy daniels was important for some context and little else, and again, i agree completely with renato. i thought the cross examination of stormy daniels was a long walk through dry sand, if anything it only enabled her to tell her story over and over and over and may have made her more sympathetic to the jury. >> but, chuck, i know it's hard to imagine how these jurors are responding. we're not seeing them, and those of us not in the courtroom are not seeing the reactions, but how attentive to bookkeeping and these kinds of very dry, you know, this dry testimony from a witness who was a junior bookkeeper sending checks through fedex to the white house, how hard is it to establish the importance of that to the jurors who have now been

galvanized presumably by the drama of a stormy daniels. is that a big distraction from the heart of the case? >> look, jurors, i think, are very good at compartmentalizing and paying attention when they need to. it's not always easy, right? after lunch, you can get a little sleepy if you're in the jury box. but at the end of the day, 12 people are paying attention. 12 people will have all the evidence when they deliberate. 12 people will have the advantage of listening to closing arguments, and so you'll have the collective judgment of 12 people. is every part of a trial riveting? on television, yes. in the movies, of course. in real life, not so much. but jurors still pay attention. they'll have the documents. they'll have the benefit of the arguments, and they'll make a collective judgment based on the evidence, even that evidence, andrea, that came in in the less exciting moments of the trial. >> i think we can all probably stipulate to the fact that it's

much easier to get a juror to pay attention to a stormy daniels than it is to a bookkeeper. i don't think they're going to keep this bookkeeper on the stand for 7 hours and 17 minutes, however, so maybe their patience will not run out. but i think we want to show you something that we've not seen before, and that is an actual photograph of stormy daniels today. this is her lawyer, clark brewster, who put this on social media and wrote this, stormy daniels was on the stand in new york versus trump criminal trial for a day and a half ending at 12:30 p.m. today. couldn't be prouder of my client. how are they doing, do you think, chuck, though, of weaving this story, or do you not have to? do you know that you're going to go back to it eventually as long as you put the elements in place, even if jurors aren't necessarily following every detail of it, you can get them there because you've laid the groundwork.

>> that's right. and so -- and you have a bunch of prosecutors with you right now. i think they would all tell you, you tell your story chronologically, you tell it methodically. you tell it linearly. you don't have complete control because sometimes a witness that you hope to call next is unavailable so you have to, you know, sort of resemble the pieces. but at the end of the day, your proof goes in in the way i just described, methodically, linearly and chronologically, and jurors follow along. and to the extent that you may have lost one or two at a dry moment, you get to summarize your case and argument as a prosecutor and, oh, by the way, as a prosecutor, you also get to go at the very end of the trial, you get to do a rebuttal argument too. and so if you think you've lost a juror along the way or you think they may have missed an important piece that came in during a less exciting moment, you can refocus their attention.

jurors are extremely good at this. you have the collective judgment of 12 people, and they will get to it. >> renato, let me take that to sort of a bigger picture losing a juror along the way, but not necessarily because of the details of the evidence. even if hiding the purpose of $130,000 payoff and eventually $420,000 with interest back to michael cohen violated new york law, is a threat that a juror might think so what? everyone knows about mr. trump. these are new york jurors. they've probably heard stories about him before, many of them acknowledge they knew some things about him before they were chosen for this jury, so maybe they thought he was a womanizer. maybe they thought he even was a liar. maybe they thought that some of the things he did politically were not good, but is this really a serious crime?

is that really sort of the convoluted what many people see as a novel and potentially convoluted connection using the law in a very novel way still the biggest impediment for these prosecutors that they have to overcome? >> well, you know, chuck just talked a moment ago about how all 12 jurors are going to be focused on the evidence. they're going to receive instructions from the judge, and i agree with that. i mean, as usual, chuck's given a very lucid analysis. i think that that said, you always when you're trying a case, whether on the prosecution side or the defense side, you're always thinking about whether or not jurors are going to be focused on something else or other issues. potentially we call it jury nullification when a jury votes in a way that's inconsistent with the evidence. i still remember being in the courtroom when a -- watching from the gallery when a juror, you know, ultimately decided not

to convict rob blagojevich on the vast majority of charges. he ultimately had to be tried again to obtain those convictions. so that's always possible, and certainly in a case like this when you have a defendant who's got a large personality and profile. what i will say, though, is that, you know, trump and his team have not done themselves any favor by creating this shiny object in terms of this story and this back and forth with stormy daniels that i don't think has been very positive for them when really, a better focus for them would be these technicalities of the law that you were just discussing a moment ago. you called it convoluted. you know, the more technical issues. there are two lawyers on the jury, and if they focus on the boring parts and stipulated away the more salacious parts, i think this would be a more compelling defense. as it is, what the jury is seeing is a defendant who's very combative, who's not being

respectful in the courtroom. they're seeing ultimately defense attorney attacking a woman who i think we all would agree, and the jury would agree is kind of dragged into this. you know, there's going to be a lot of jurors who feel very sorry for stormy daniels and all that she's been through. though i think that that is their own worst enemy there. >> and a woman who, as we got that first photograph of her that was sent out by her lawyer, made be very, very relieved to have this over. there she is with her lawyer, her 7 hours and 17 minutes of testimony complete. and right now our team from inside the courthouse who have been watching all of this unfold, they're making their way to our cameras. we'll bring you everything they saw and learned so far from today's important testimony. our special coverage of donald trump's hush money trial continues in just moments. ump'sl continues in just moments. ( ♪♪ ) look, things may seem fine down there, but you need to watch out for diseases. i'll be okay.

does this look ok?! ugh. how do i protect myself? with the new scotts healthy plus lawn food. it's the only product that prevents 27 diseases while feeding your grass to help keep your lawn healthy this season. want me to show you how to put it on? no, i think i know how to use a spreader. pick up a bag of the new scotts turf builder healthy plus lawn food today. feed your lawn. feed it.

(bell ringing) someone needs to customize and save hundreds with liberty mutual! (inaudible sounds) (elevator doors opening) wait, there's an elevator? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ dad and i finally had that talk. no, not that talk. about what the future looks like. for me. i may have trouble getting around, but i want to live in my home where i'm comfortable and my friends are nearby. i can do it with the help of a barber, personal shopper and exercise buddy. someone who can help me live right at home.

life's good. when you have a plan. ♪ ♪ - so this is pickleball? - pickle! ah, these guys are intense. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? (ella) fashion moves fast. 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.

you've got xfinity wifi at home. take it on the go with xfinity mobile. customers now get exclusive access to wifi speed up to a gig in millions of locations. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free. that's like getting two unlimited lines for twenty dollars a month each for a year. so, ditch the other guys and switch today. buy one line of unlimited, get one free for a year with xfinity mobile! plus, save even more and get an eligible 5g phone on us! visit xfinitymobile.com today.

and welcome back. chris jansing and i here as the court is in recess for a lunch break, a lunch break for all, everyone and the witnesses, the defendant, and of course the jurors. we have a statement now from clark brewster, stormy daniels' attorney telling nbc news that he is proud of her and the way she handled her grueling testimony, a day and a half it was. he says she is shaken by the ordeal but relieved it is over. that is a picture that he sent out on twitter of the two of

them afterwards. the first picture we've seen of her, you know, other than the courtroom sketches, and in his statement, clark brewster, stormy daniels' attorney tells us, i think she was directly responsive and transparent and did an excellent job of responding directly, simply, and thoroughly, and i'm proud of how she conducted herself on the stand with courtesy and responsiveness. she feels a lot of pressure, especially in a trial of this magnitude in front of a packed courtroom being covered by the media nationally and in a worldwide manner, and she's relieved that it's over. continuing this is from clark brewster, the fact that she went through it and completed the objective, and she has a sense of accomplishment is important to her. she was cross examined over communications over years and having your memory challenged like that and having to respond to questions immediately with recall is not easy, and it was quite an accomplishment. she did a remarkable job of getting her testimony across. she is shaken by the ordeal and the social media and the attacks and venom that she goes through

daily, and she certainly is always concerned about her safety. both sides got a view of how bright she is, and i will tell you i thought she was just outstanding in her ability to relate the facts. that is from clark brewster, stormy daniels' attorney to nbc news. so let's bring in someone who was in the courtroom, msnbc host of "the last word" lawrence o'donnell. lawrence, what was your takeaway from the testimony, the cross examination, the redirect, everything that she went through on the stand and how she responded and how importantly the jurors responded to her because the people in the overflow room don't see that, and we can only read exactly the verbatim of what's going on. >> reporter: well, of course the jurors are always the mystery in every courtroom, and that's a good thing. we really don't have any idea of what they're thinking. i can't say that at the beginning of this cross examination of stormy daniels,

which began on tuesday, then i had a perfect view of all of the jurors at that time. none of them were taking notes at any time. that doesn't tell you anything really one way or the other, but there certainly was not a moment that they thought was worthy of -- i want to make sure i make a memory of that. and today went very, very slowly, and it was -- it was a cross examination today that was about an hour longer than it needed to be. a full hour went by before susan necheles actually went into that hotel room to get stormy daniels' testimony about what happened in that hotel room, and once you got to that hotel room, it was a matter of playing different quotes against her over different times. there was an interview she gave in 2011 that was constantly being brought up to her in "in

touch" magazine, the basic difference to what she said in that interview, which was the most spare account of this whole thing and the prosecutor on redirect pointed out that the article itself said that it was likely edited, so that this is an edited version of what stormy daniels said. but she didn't include every quote line, every single detail that she has included in her later accounts and in her testimony in this courtroom today. but what's also known about her testimony in the courtroom today is she did not allow -- she did not include details that she has included elsewhere before because the defense didn't want those details included. and so there's a defense team here that did a lot of work to limit what stormy daniels could say here and then spent a fair amount of time talking about how she hasn't said it exactly the way she said it before in other

places. and, listen, that's a game that witnesses have to face. normally the statements that are being put in front of them are things they've said in previous under oath testimony, whether it be a deposition or a grand jury testimony or something like that. here it's interviews on "60 minutes" and an interview with "in touch" magazine. and it's a thing that all witnesses have to go through, but what was never really addressed by the defense was what happened in that hotel room. susan necheles in her cross examination question suggest that had nothing happened in that hotel room, but the problem with that as an evidentiary matter in this case is the only way the defense can introduce evidence of what happened in that courtroom is for the defendant -- i'm sorry, in the hotel room is for the defendant donald trump to take the witness stand and swear under oath what happened in that hotel room. we know donald trump is not

going to take the witness stand in this case because he couldn't answer questions about every aspect of the case, and so basically stormy daniels' testimony about what actually happened in the hotel room will go uncontested to this jury. and the most important other piece of evidence not related to the hotel room that the jury will have is a transcript of the access hollywood video that describes donald trump's approach to women, his sexually assaultive approach to women. so they're going to know that that guy said that, and that's that guy's motto about how to approach women in this world, and now he's alone in a hotel room with stormy daniels, and the defense simply threw a question that was denied, wants to suggest so that jury that donald trump alone with stormy

daniels in that hotel room did not have sex with her. i don't see any possible way a juror is going to be able to argue that point in the jury room. >> it's chris jansing here, lawrence. there was one fairly long section where susan necheles kept, it seemed like, trying to get her to say what the meaning of the word dinner was when she really didn't eat, and you're wondering why is she going on and on and on. that is one of the things that took place in that room. but there are also then all of these questions about whether she was just saying all of this, making it up obviously is the clear implication here. in fact, she basically said that because she wanted to make money. i'm going to read you a couple of quick little back and forths that you actually saw and heard. they were talking about the documentary that was on peacock. you were paid $125,000 for the doc. no, i was not. i have not received all of it. you're trying to trick me into saying something that isn't

entirely true. you misconstrued that. i was quoting some women who came up to me. i was not selling myself to anyone, and then repeatedly show me where i said that. and i wonder how you think the jury -- well, again, you can't get into the minds of the jury, but how you read that? did she come across as quick? did she come across as well prepared, maybe by her lawyer who tweeted that picture? both? how did you think stormy daniels presented today to the jury? >> reporter: she presented as a normal person with normal reactions on a witness stand. most of her testimony was done in the yes or no style ha that courtrooms are used to and was not contentious, wasn't really struggling with the defense attorney. but a certain amount of it is -- includes stormy daniels' personal inability to step away

from the battle of wits, and an example is susan necheles said to her so in your profession, you make up stories about sex, and her answer was, no, the sex is real. just like in that room. and so that's the danger that you have as a defense lawyer cross examining stormy daniels. you never know where that little hook is going to come back in where she's saying the sex in that room with donald trump was real. and there's no counter to that at all. none from the defense, stormy daniels' testimony about the actual sex. and so that's -- and i think jurors completely understand feeling put upon in the questioning or when they put up tweets of the attacks on stormy daniels that she replied to, and she made the point, i never started attacks on twitter, but i replied to attacks on twitter,

and her replies were always an attempt at a witty kind of reply to that, but so this jury could see that this woman has a history of being attacked over this very subject, that this defense attorney's not the first person who's doing that to her, and so it's someone who's in her view, in her presentation of self trying to tell a story and she's trying to tell that story with people out there who hate her or attack her all the time, and now there's a defense attorney who's trying to upset her. that's the point, and i don't think the jury holds it against the defense attorney she's trying to upset stormy daniels or knock her off balance in her testimony, but i don't think that that was achieved on any relevant point at all. what you always have to do when you're listening to testimony especially on cross examination of defense, is how much of this is actually relevant, and it's

extremely common for a massive amount of it to have nothing to do with the charges in the case. and that certainly was true of the cross examination today. >> and, lawrence, that very exchange is something we talked about here earlier because it stood out as, you know, a real example of her combativeness and her responsiveness, her defending herself, but also giving more information and in a very granular way, i don't know how that impacts on the jury, but the fact that she then went on to say necheles trying to pin her down said you make up stories and you made up stories about mr. trump, something to that effect, we read it earlier, and she said, no, that happened. if i were making that up, you know, it would be a better story if it were fictional, so she's just in the moment and very smart, and also according to someone who was watching this i think from the overflow room

noting earlier, she seemed, you know, upset and emotional about the exchanges of people who were harassing her on social media on twitter, that she was being combative with that because she did feel threatened or under attack, that her life has changed, and as she pointed out on redirect, it's changed for the worse because of everything that transpired. >> yeah, and i would say in the room tonally, i wouldn't say combative. i would say that it was responsive meaning if something aggressive is said to her as was said a few times -- and by the way, susan necheles did not raise her voice, she didn't yell. i think when we -- no one's raising their voice in there. stormy daniels never raises her voice in any way. she never sounds angry in her reply. in fact, it's a kind of dinner

table tone on both ends of that conversation that just includes some pointed questions to which stormy daniels' reply is i think what it would have been -- what it would sound like anyway, what it would sound like tonally if you were just at a dinner table with her and you heard this kind of exchange. and i've been in courtrooms where it does get very loud and very angry, and i've heard lawyers yell, and i've heard witnesses get extremely angry and genuinely combative. that's not really what we saw here. i mean, i've seen talk shows get more combative than this. i've seen cable news interviews get way more combative than this. >> so have we all. >> reporter: yeah, exactly. so it was a pretty normal i'd say balance of cross examination where i don't think susan necheles was trying to pull any stunts, and i don't think stormy daniels was trying to, you know,

pull stunts on her side of these exchanges, but what is absolutely true is you can't ever quite be sure where the stormy daniels' answer will end because she might just throw something on on the tail end of a short sentence or right after a yes that actually is -- that actually is relevant in some way, like that line about, you know, in her movies, the sex is real, just like in that hotel room. >> well, there's lawrence o'donnell who may have asked some tough questions in his own time here on msnbc. thank you for your observations. it's always good to see you. for more on all of lawrence's observations from, again, inside the courtroom, tune in to "the last word" tonight 10:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. now i want to bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin, msnbc contributor and "new york times" investigative reporter sue craig. both have been in the court overflow room all morning, and if i can, sue, i'm going to

start where lawrence left off. he referenced a particular back and forth in the testimony where susan necheles, trump's defense attorney, asked a question, you have a lot of experience making phony stories about sex, to which stormy daniels replied, wow, that's not how i would put it. the sex in the film is very much real just like what happened to me in that room. there were a lot of back and forths that i think at least in reading them may not be as uncomfortable as some of them were yesterday because yesterday was very graphic, but i wonder what your impressions were of the back and forth that involved the sex, the sexual encounter that, of course, susan necheles was trying to argue didn't happen and stormy daniels said did. >> trying to argue it didn't happen, there's inconsistencies

in her story, but in doing so, i have to tell you i was sitting in the overflow, i felt very uncomfortable. i mean, it bordered on susan necheles i think shaming a sex worker. i mean, it felt like that to me. i mean, the questions, there were weren't one or two, they went on and on. just very uncomfortable. it felt like something that might have happened three decades ago, and stormy daniels kept coming back and pointing out this was her job whether it was selling merchandise, selling her story, this is how she was making a living or making pornographic films. just because she is a pornographic star doesn't mean that she can just -- any guy can just have sex with her, and that's sort of what came across to me in the exchanges. stormy daniels really held her ground on that, but i just -- the questioning was uncomfortable to me. i think lawrence was right in that maybe the temperature didn't go up in terms of the

voices, but my temperature went up just listening to the whole thing. it was uncomfortable. how did you take it, lisa? did you have the same? >> i did. as i remind our viewers all the time, i sat through two. e. jean carroll trials. this was very much what i'd call a nuts and sluts defense. there was a portion of the cross examination where susan necheles was focused on the fact that stormy daniels now claims that she is a medium, and that she communicates with dead people and has participated in a tv series about the paranormal where she explores things including the fact that at one point an ex-boyfriend of her was inhabited by spirits. she was mocking stormy daniels. she wants the jury to think she is a liar and she is crazy. and she also wants the jurors to judge her for her occupation. stormy daniels gave no ground on that, as sue just said. she might be an exotic dancer, an adult film actor, but she was very clear when susan necheles

used the phrase selling yourself to describe what stormy daniels was doing on a tour where she was making appearances at clubs, stormy daniels set her straight. i was not selling myself. i was dancing. the implication always was i am not a sex worker and i don't have a sign around my neck that says consent given freely to everyone at any time. >> right. >> she was a woman who seemed pretty self-possessed, in control of her own body, and wanting to maintain essentially to quote pretty women, i say who, i say when and not, you know, donald trump was -- that i was for the taking by this man. i increasingly see what trump did to stormy daniels -- and she used the phrase what happened to me more insidiously than i think i ever have. it is a reinforcement of the predator frame that the access hollywood tape introduced. it brought into full vision a very new donald trump, not just

a donald trump who was womanizing and liked beautiful women and was one of the world's most eligible bachelors as david pecker described him, but a trump who knew what he was doing and wasn't just hitting on people but making it impossible for them to escape or at least down right uncomfortable, and stormy daniels today, i agree with sue, the temperature was down, but the self-possession was up, and she would not gif ground. my favorite answer that she gave was when susan necheles basically said to her you make things up like this all the time. you've acted in over 200 pornographic movies and those are all made up. and she said if i was going to make this up, i would have made it a much better story, and i don't know how people in the courtroom reacted but in the overflow room there was like an ooh, almost like sick burn because stormy daniels was in control. >> the other thing i thought stormy daniels did really well today was susan necheles in asking her questions was putting words in her mouth and saying,

well, did you say? and stormy daniels would say i don't think i did. or she would say no, and she would ask for whatever susan necheles was referring to to be read into the record, and when it was, several times susan necheles had misrepresented what stormy daniels had said. so this created sort of a lot of back and forth between the two of them, but i think the jury had to have picked up on what susan was doing in misrepresenting stormy daniels' words to her hoping stormmy would say yes, i said that, but she was having none of it. >> i would tell you both as a lawyer -- go ahead, i'm sorry. >> i'd love to hear what both of you think about the exchange when she was asked about being strong, and she said, well, i wasn't strong then. i am now. she was 27 years old. he was 60 years old. he was not only famous and rich, but she was, you know, on a golf tee, you know, saying hello to celebrities, a lot of

celebrities. >> and she talked about the power imbalance. >> that's what really struck me. i don't know how it struck you, the two of you. >> it struck me, andrea, in one critical respect about the passage of time. this episode happened in 2006 when she was 27 years old, and yet she's being asked to recount her story now, and cultural mores have changed. we see people in her occupation differently than we used to. we see women accusing powerful men of sexual misconduct differently than we used to, and stormy daniels therefore sees herself differently than she used to, and so when susan necheles was accusing her of changing her story over time, you know, the way in which we've all changed societally, we can't put that back in the bottle. it's hard for stormy daniels to recall her 2006 self or even her 2011 or '16 self and tell the story she would have told then because just as memories fade, memories also change as they're

processed by our continued lived experiences, and so i was thinking about that too when she said i wasn't strong then. i'm strong now. that's not just a function of her lived experience, but it's a function of the fact that collectively we have all changed as a result of the #metoo movement and other developments in this country that make it unacceptable for any lawyer to talk to stormy daniels, for example, the way rape victims were talked to as sue mentioned like three decades ago. >> and i have to say, the one thing that really i -- when i was thinking about that issue, it took me back to when donald trump at that point it was 2006, '7, the apprentice was still really very -- riding very high and the power that he had over her in terms of dangling a spot on "celebrity apprentice" was huge. she was an up and comer. the show, i don't know if they would have put her on. there was a chance, and she saw that as her shot. just the power dynamic between the rich and powerful man who

was twice her age and this young star who was up and coming and thought maybe she could get on the show. i really felt that today as she was talking. >> lisa rubin, sue craig, thanks to both of you for your insights. it's extraordinary having watched all of that, and joining us now is former deputy assistant attorney general and host of "talking feds podcast" harry litman and msnbc legal analyst kristy greenberg. harry, i want to start with you because you were inside the courtroom watching all of this, and from your experience, just tell us what you think was a mistake to put her on the stand in the first place? was the cross examination too aggressive? you know, just right? and how she held up? >> yes. in brief, not a mistake, and she held up well. so look, today necheles landed a

couple jabs, but she need add knockout blow she needs because of her client to persuade the jury that the entire thing is concocted, and she didn't get close to that, and she made some of the same mistakes of tone and over aggression that she made, i thought, on tuesday. she advanced, she took chances on advancing certain views, and stormy daniels who was basically in control, it's the last thing you want to happen on cross, on cross you're the voice. you're the one the jury's looking at, and stormy continually said no or pushed back. the jury might have been left with some thought that stormy protests too much on maybe her money motives, but the d.a. cleaned that up on redirect, basically, and then i think you'd -- lisa, i was just talking about it, the suggestion that because she's a porn star she shouldn't in any way be cowed when a naked billionaire, you know, is all of a sudden hovering over her, i think not only didn't it land, but

actually could have alienated the jury. the jury was fairly attentive, less than you might have thought. i think in general, what i thought tuesday which is her main story comes through, and that's all the d.a. needs. the other side has to completely undermine it and they didn't get within a mile of that. >> so harry's question, i think, kristy, or his comments about the questions that came from the defense really echo in many ways what we just heard from our other good friends inside the courthouse today, but of course mr. trump's treatment of women is not what's on trial here, right? and whether or not there was a sexual encounter is not what's on trial. is the importance here, again, if that lands with the jury the way that you folks seem to think that it will -- and i'm going to go back to something i said in our first hour -- is it that if the defense is going to present

him as a family man who wanted at all costs to protect his family from this untrue story coming out that this disabuses the jurors of any notion, how does that perception, that -- and there are five women on the jury who may view this a very particular way, but how does that play into the juror's ultimate deliberations, do you think, kristy? >> well, so one reason why whether or not this encounter happened is in question is because the defense has put it in question. the defense in their opening said this encounter never happened, and stormy daniels is lying about it. when she sought to get money about it, that was all because this is just a made up, concocted story. so again, hearing from stormy daniels, i think her credibility given what the defense's theory of the case is i think was important for her to be able to say that this happened and for the jury, i think, to believe

that it happened. one thing i will say is there was a question on cross to stormy daniels from trump's attorney about whether or not trump had expressed concern about his family. it was a question to stormy daniels. it was a bizarre question because, again, if you're the defense and your whole thing is this didn't happen and he only talked to her once in a fleeting moment at a golf tournament, then why are you asking her whether or not they've had conversations where he expressed concern about his family? it was the wrong witness to make the point that you just said he does need to make for his defense that these hush money payments really had nothing to do with the election and it was really about concern for his reputation, his brand and his family. it was just the wrong witness to really try to make that point, the person that is accusing him of having a sexual encounter with her is not the person you pose that question to. >> and she said, no, he never mentioned -- >> she said, no, right. >> go ahead, harry. >> just you learn first day of law school, don't ask a question

you don't know the answer to. she did it repeatedly and she paid for it. this is susan necheles. >> i didn't go to law school, but even i know that, harry litman and kristy greenberg, thank you both very much, and we are in a lunch break. the testimony of stormy daniels is over after more than seven hours. we are waiting for a return, which is expected to come, oh, i guess in the next half an hour or so after a lunch break. coming up, a former federal judge who was appointed by former president george w. bush will join us. what he thinks about what happened in court today and how judge merchan has handled the gag order. you're watching special coverage of donald trump's hush money trial. andrea and i will be right back. the wayfair vibe at our place is western. my thing, darling? shine. gardening. some of us go for the dramatic. how didn't i know wayfair had vanities in tile?

[ gasps ] this. wow! do you have any ottomans without legs. sure. you'll flip for the poof cart. in the wayborhood, there's a place for all of us. ♪ wayfair. every style. every home. ♪ (vo) explore the world the viking way from the quiet comfort of elegant small ships with no children and no casinos. we actually have reinvented ocean voyages, designing all-inclusive experiences for the thinking person. viking - voted world's best by both travel + leisure and condé nast traveler. learn more at viking.com. >> tech: does your windshield have a crack? trust safelite. this customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home... ...so he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... then we got to work. we replaced his windshield... ...and installed new wipers to protect his new glass.

>> customer: looks great. thank you. >> tech: my pleasure. >> vo: we come to you for free. schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

so it has been a very long and interesting day so far in court, as we have been telling you. the completion of seven hours and 17 minutes of testimony by stormy daniels, certainly the longest for any witness, certainly so far. michael cohen yet to come. he could break that record. having said that, there are interesting people who are not involved in the courtroom except to be observers, one of them judge jeanine pirro. the other is rick scott, a u.s. senator considered a possible vice presidential candidate who spoke to reporters before going into the courtroom.

let's take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say. >> raises money for democrats. you've got the lead prosecutor's wife is a significant donor to democrats and i think to biden. so this is just a bunch of democrats saying we want to make sure that donald trump can't talk. >> joining us now, judge john e. jones who previously served as chief judge of the u.s. middle district court of pennsylvania where he was appointed to the bench by president george w. bush in 2002. he is also now president of dickinson college. judge, thank you very much for being with us. let me start with what we heard from rick scott. we know that donald trump is under a gag order and yet you have someone close to him who would like to be potentially his vice presidential running mate saying the judge's daughter is a political operative raising

money for democrats. a lead prosecutor's wife a significant for democrats, what do you think about him saying things maybe he can't? >> i don't think so. it's great to be with you. so much outside noise to judge merchan. you know, when i was on the bench and i had a controversial case, i used to joke that i thought my name was changed to bush-appointed judge because you get typecast in a certain way. i don't find that as anything merchan is going to pay particular attention to. and quite honestly, you know, it sort of flies in the face of what we can see or hear in our own eyes in terms of the way the trial is being conducted. >> in fact, his family is not there. eric trump was there for one day. he hasn't had validators there for him but doesn't the gag

order also say that people close to trump, that it's a violation for other people on his behalf to demean family of the court, anyone besides the judge and the prosecutors. >> the problem, andrea, is that, you know, for merchan, well, first of all, the people would have to act and the person of the district attorney, the prosecutors to try to call him on that. and then the problem becomes creating a nexus between the speaker and donald trump. you know, did he do it -- did scott volunteer it or was he goaded into doing it by trump? it's probably an area that merchan and the prosecution doesn't want to wade into, and, again, i think merchan has done a great job thus far managing the case, and he's tried to avoid pretty successfully the kind of side shows that can take a trial off track, and that's what this would be. >> well, that's one of the key things that a judge has to do,

right, is keep the trial on track, and part of that is what he says, what he does, but also another part of that is, i think, you know, does the jury look at judge merchan or any judge, you or anyone else who has served that way, and say this is someone i trust, this is someone i listen to. we have talked about sort of how the jury is reacting to, say, susan necheles, the defense attorney, how that day reacting to stormy daniels, the witness. should we be paying attention to how the jury is responding to judge merchan? >> absolutely, chris. it's an excellent point. juries feel a closeness to the presiding judge. it's logical they would feel that way. the judge greets them in the morning. the judge presides over the case. the judge gives them breaks during the day, including a lunch break, he says fore well to them at night. i go back to the e. jean carroll case. if you remember trump's attorneys, including attorney

habba tried to run rough shot over the presiding judge in that case. they were discourteous to the judge and i really think that the jury didn't like that. the jury took that, you know, offensively, and so, you know, you have to be careful when you are, in this case, a defense attorney, or the defendant, the former president in this case, if the jury thinks that you're abusing their friend, their protector, a person they bond with and the person of the trial judge, and i saw this happen time again in cases i presided over, then they're going to react badly, and they'll count that as a strike against the party that does that. >> and we just have about a minute, let me ask you a question question about how concerned he may beto avoid being overturned on appeal and the introduction of prejudiced information on the direct testimony of stormy daniels, he

said afterwards out of the ear shot of the jury, he jumped in to object to things because the defense attorney hadn't objected. what do you think of that? >> the presiding judge has the obligation to protect the record in the case. if you have to jump in at your own initiative, then you must do that. you're not a potted plant. you have to just sit there, or you don't have to sit there and listen to it. i thought he did that well under the circumstances. he's not afraid of being reversed. i think he's in the moment. if you judge defensively you're not going to judge well. you do your job, hunker down, there's a lot coming at you and you manage the best you can. >> judge john e. jones, thank you so much for sharing your expertise. we are expecting donald trump's hush money trial to

resume. more special coverage. stay with us. stay with us (ella) fashion moves fast. 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.