EVERYTHING HAPPENS HERE ON LIVE TV. WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF THE DOG THAT HASN'T BARKED YET? MICHAEL COHEN HASN'T FALLEN APART. HE HASN'T MELTED. HE HASN'T STOOD UP AND SCREAMED. MICHAEL COHEN HAS KEPT HIS YOU KNOW WHAT TOGETHER UNDER A CROSS SO BAD THAT THE PERSON CARRYING IT OUT APOLOGIZED TO THE JURY IN FRONT OF THE JURY. >> WE DID HEAR MICHAEL COHEN YELL ONCE THIS MORNING. IT WAS DURING A RECORDING. IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THE JURORS HAVE HEARD THE OTHER SIDE OF MICHAEL COHEN. BUT HE HAS REALLY KEPT IT TOGETHER UNDER PRESSURE. ESPECIALLY TODAY, I MAYBE HAVE A LITTLE TAKE ON CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES IN COURT TODAY, AND I THINK BOTH THINGS CAN BE TRUE. WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THEY DID SOME DAMAGE TO MICHAEL COHEN TODAY. THEY SPENT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOURS THIS MORNING GOING THROUGH HIS LIES. IT'S POINTS TO WHERE ARE THEY GOING, THEY WERE NOT JUST MINOR LIES THEY WERE LIES UNDER OATH, JUST LIKE HE'S UNDER OATH NOW. THEY LEAD UP TO THE CALL. IT CASTS DOUBT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CALL. HE IS A MINUTE AND 36 SECOND CALL HE PLACES TO KEITH SCHILLER. AND RIGHT BEFORE THAT, HE'S NOT JUST GETTING ONE HARASSING THE CALL. HE'S GETTING MULTIPLE HARASSING CALLS FROM AN UNKNOWN NUMBER. ONE PERSON THE FORGETS TO HIDE THE NUMBER. HE GETS THE NUMBER. HE HAS A LONG BACK AND FORTH WITH THE PERSON SAYING, THE PERSON IS 14 YEARS OLD ALLEGEDLY, WE DON'T KNOW THIS FOR SURE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. THE PERSON IS I'M REALLY SORRY. MIKE SL LIKE I'M GOING TO SICK THE SECRET SERVICE ON YOU. AND THEY HAVE A FULL EXCHANGE. >> SO HE WASN'T A PROTECTEE OF THE SECRET SERVICE. >> THIS IS THE THREAT. HE THE CALLS KEITH SCHILLER. IN CALL, HE MANAGED TO ACHIEVE BOTH TO RELAY ALL THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE HARASSING PHONE CALL TO KEITH SCHILLER, AND THEN HE MANAGES TO GET THROUGH TO THE PRESIDENT AND RELAY THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PAYMENT TO STORMY HAS BEEN MADE. THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED, BUT I FELT IT WAS EFFECTIVE THAT THEY CAST SOME DOUBT ON IT. BUT TO VAUGHN'S POINT, EVEN IF THEY DID, THERE'S SO MUCH MORE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVEN'T EVEN BROUGHT UP. MOST OF THES CROSS-EXAMINATION HAS SIMPLY BEEN A CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF MICHAEL COHEN. THEY HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO SO MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE ALREADY. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE WRAPPING UP. SO I THINK THEY ARE HOPING THIS ONE SHOT THEY THINK IS EFFECTIVE WILL CAST DOWN ON EVERYTHING. I'M SKEPTICAL OF THAT, BUT I DID THINK TODAY THEY GOT A HIT IN IT'S NOT A KNOCKOUT, BUT IT WAS A HIT. >> WE SAY EVERY DAY WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S LANDING WITH THE JURY. I HAVE BEEN ON A JURY TWO TIMES. I ONLY SPEAK AS A FORMER JUROR. SOMETIMES WHAT YOU'RE EXPERIENCING IS AGITATION THAT YOU'RE STILL THERE. SOMETIMES YOU'RE RIVETED. WE HAVE NO IDEA. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING DAVID KELLY SAID ON THIS PROGRAM, THAT HE HAS PUT UP WITNESSES AND I THINK HE WAS QUICK TO SAY MICHAEL COHEN ISN'T THAT. BUT ONCE A CASE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO THE DEGREE THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THROUGH DOCUMENTS, THROUGH WITNESSES VERY FRIENDLY AND AFFECTIONATE TOWARD THE DEFENDANT, YOU WERE IN HIS EXAMPLE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRUG ADDICT, THERE'S A CORROBORATOR. SO THE MISSION ITSELF STEPPING BACK OF DESTROYING, SMEARING AND MALIGNING A WITNESS WHO THE PROSECUTION ON DIRECT WAS PRETTY THOROUGH IN INDICTING HIS PAST CONDUCT, INCLUING EVERYTHING TODD BLANCHE WENT OVER TODAY, THE LIES TO CONGRESS, THE GUILTY PLEAS, I THINK THE PROSECUTION HAD DEALT WITH MOST OF THOSE CHAPTERS OF MICHAEL COHEN'S LIFE ON DIRECT. >> I THINK THE PROSECUTION HAS AL THE PRESIDENTIAL SPACE TO MAKE THIS CASE NOT ABOUT MICHAEL COHEN'S TESTIMONY, GIVEN EVERYTHING ELSE THEY HAVE PRESENTED ON THEIR CASE IN CHIEF. THERE'S SO MUCH OTHER EVIDENCE THEY CAN RELY ON IN TERMS OF SUMMATION WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT MICHAEL COHEN AT THE CENTER IN TERMS OF HIS CREDIBILITY AND EVERYTHING HE TALKED ABOUT. THERE'S ENOUGH OTHER WITNESSES WHO PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT HAS PLACED MICHAEL COHEN IN THE ROOM, THAT'S MADE HIM AN ACTOR SUCH THAT IT CORROBORATES HIS ACCOUNT OF WHAT THINGS ARE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT FIRSTHAND IF YOU THINK HE'S A SCUM BAG OR UNBELIEVABLE OR WHAT HAVE YOU. ANY PROSECUTOR PARTICULARLY AT THE STATE LEVEL HAS DEALT WITH UNSAVORY WITNESSES THAT WE WISH WE HAD ALTERNATIVES FOR. AND YOU DON'T. AND SO THE WAY AROUND THAT IS TO FOCUS ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WORKS FOR YOU AND THE WITNESSES THAT AREN'T AS PROBLEMATIC TO MAKE YOUR CASE. THEY CAN EASILY DO IT. I THINK THAT THE DEFENSE IN TERMS OF WHERE THIS SORT OF PUNCH TODAY LANDED, IT'S NOT ABOUT QUANTITY. IT'S ABOUT QUALITY. IT'S ABOUT THE HEFT OF THE HIT THAT THEY MADE IN TERMS OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. I WOULD AGREE WITH SUE. THIS OCTOBER 24th PHONE CALL IS NOT SOMETHING TO SORT OF GLOSS OVER AND MISS. BUT TO VAUGHN'S POINT, AND VAUGHN IS CORRECT, WHEN YOU STEP BACK, YOU STILL HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION TO THE JURY, DOES THIS STILL MAKE SENSE IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL NARRATIVE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO GET THE JURY TO BUY. IF YOU'RE THE DEFENSE, TO ANDREW'S POINT, ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO SAY MICHAEL COHEN DID ALL THIS OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF HIS HEART. HE WAS STILL PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. HE'S LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING. THAT'S A LOT FOR THE JURY TO SORT OF PROCESS IN ONE SITTING. I DO THINK, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, AS WE SIT AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE DEFENSE AND THEIR STRATEGY, THEIR STRATEGY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AS WELL DEFINED AS THE PROSECUTION BECAUSE ALL THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IN ANY REALM THAT THEY CAN IS CREATE REASONABLE DOUBT. I DO THINK THERE'S A CONVERSATION TO BE HAD ABOUT WHETHER THE INCONSISTENCY OR PERCEIVED INCONSISTENCY ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION CREATES REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE MINDS OF A JUROR. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DEFENSE'S LINE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE STRAIGHT FORWARD. IT CAN BE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BECAUSE ALL THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS POKE A HOLE. >> I WOULD JUST SAY AS A FORMER JUROR, IF I SAT THERE FOR 14 19 DAYS AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE HE WAS INNOCENT OR GUILTY HINGED ON THE OCTOBER 24th CALL, I PROBABLY WASN'T GOING TO GO WITH GUILTY IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF WHAT ELSE HE HAS? WE LEARNED THAT HE PLANS TO BE DONE MONDAY BEFORE THE MORNING BREAK. SO THIS WAS IT. PROBABLY EITHER HIS SECOND BEST SHOT OR SORT OF BEGINNING OF THE END. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME THERE IS MONDAY BEFORE THE FIRST MORNING BREAK. >> I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION. DOES HE GO BACK TO THE MORNING OF OCTOBER 26th WHEN DONALD TRUMP AND MICHAEL COHEN HAD HAD TWO DIFFERENT PHONE CALLS LASTING SEVERAL MINUTES BEFORE COHEN WENT AND SET UP AN ACCOUNT AT FIRST REPUBLIC TO BEGIN THAT WIRE TRANSFER. IS HE GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE OCTOBER 28th PHONE CALL AND THE 11:00 A.M. HOUR AFTER HE FINALIZED THE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT WITH STORMY DANIELS THROUGH KEITH DAVIDSON. THOSE ARE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS. THIS STORY WILL COME THROUGH CLOSING ARGUMENTS. AS I LEARNED FROM ANDREW WEISSMAN, IT'S THE JOB OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT. AT THE PSALM TIME, THE DEFENSE FOR DONALD TRUMP HAS YET TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE STORY OR AN ALTERNATIVE TIMELINE TO THE EVENTS OF THE PROSECUTION THAT HAS DETAILED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER THE DEFENSE TEAM, THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED FOR THIS JURY A MORE SPECIFIC TIMELINE OF WHEN DONALD TRUMP DID, IN FACT, BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THIS ALLEGED ARRANGEMENT OF $130,000 FROM MICHAEL COHEN TO STORMY DANIELS. WAS IT IN EARLY FEBRUARY IN 2018 AFTER THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" WROTE ABOUT IT? THOSE ARE OF THE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS THAT FRANKLY THE JURY AND CLOSING ARGUMENTS WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE TWO SIDE STORYLINESES, THEY ARE DIFFERENT. BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS. HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HAVEN'T TRIED TO PAVE THEIR OWN CLEAR VERSION OF EVENTS EITHER. >> SO ON THAT POINT OF VAUGHN'S, TO THE DEFENSE'S STORY, HE DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH STORMY DANIELS. HE DID MAKE EVERY SINGLE DECISION. HE DID REQUIRE HIS FOs TO HAGGLE DOWN EVERY SINGLE BILL AND HE DID PAY MORE THAN TWO TIMES THE REIMBURSEMENT. >> AND DIDN'T TAKE ANY NEGATIVE ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO WEISSELBERG AND COHEN. >> TO HIS OTHER POINT, COHEN IS IN THE FOLD UNTIL '18. >> THE IDEA IS THIS HAS HAPPENED BEHIND HIS BACK, WHICH WE KNOW FROM EVERYONE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. AND AS MICHAEL COHEN HAD REPEATEDLY SAID TODAY, IF I DID IT THAT, I WOULD BE FIRED. SO THIS IS ALL HAPPENING -- THE STORY IS HAPPENING BEHIND HIS BACK AND HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. AND WEISSELBERG AND COHEN, ACCORDING TO HOPE HICKS, THANK GOD MICHAEL DID THIS. THIS ISN'T WHAT DID YOU DO AND I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU PASSED THESE CHECKS TO ME AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS SIGNING, AND I'M PAYING YOU TWICE AS MUCH MONEY AS I SHOULD BE, AND YOU NEVER TOLD ME. >> AND I DID IT 12 TIMES. >> I'M NOW ON RECORD SAYING I REIMBURSED MICHAEL COHEN FOR PAYMENTS TO A PORN STAR. IT SOUNDS LIKE HE HASN'T ADMITTED THAT. THE NARRATIVE IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT. I WANTED TO JUST RAISE ONE THING BECAUSE THIS IS DEFINITELY LIKE YOU ALWAYS TRIED YOUR LAST CASE. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, BUT TODD BLANCHE DID A BETTER JOB TODAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY WHERE MICHAEL COHEN LIES IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND THE LIES ARE DISTANCING DONALD TRUMP FROM THE MOSCOW TOWER. >> HE LIES ABOUT THE TIMES THAT HE TALKED TO TRUMP ABOUT BUILDING A TRUMP TOWER. >> HE SAYS THREE BEFORE CONGRESS. >> THERE'S REASONS WHY. >> AND HE THE WANTS TO MAKE IT EARLIER. HE'S TRYING TO BE LIKE DON'T WORRY. NOT DURING THE CAMPAIGN. IT WAS MUCH THE MALL SMAER. IT WAS LIKE EARLIER AND LITTLE. AND TODD BLAUNCH GOES TO THAT AND YOU SUBMITTED A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT. THIS WASN'T YOUR SPUR OF THE MOMENT TAIL LIGHT. AND MICHAEL COHEN ON CROSS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE BRING OUT BAD FACTS, SAYS, YES, THAT'S NOT JUST MY STATEMENT. THAT FALSE STATEMENT THAT I ADMITTED WAS PERJURY, WHICH BY THE WAY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN DONE FOR THE PRESIDENT, MICHAEL COHEN HAD ZERO INTEREST PERSONALLY IN THAT. THAT WAS DONE BY A JOINT DEFENSE COMMITTEE THAT INCLUDED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES' LAWYER. THAT WAS LIKE PUTTING -- IF YOU WANT THE COSTELLO, WHAT'S HAPPENING BEHIND THE SCENES, WHAT ARE THE LAWYERS DOING, HE JUST DIRECTLY IMPLICATED DONALD TRUMP IN THAT SCHEME. >> BACK TO THE
