EXAMINATION AND PROSECUTION WILL BE ABLE TO REDIRECT AND CLEAR UP ANYTHING HE SAID. BACK TO YOU. >> LAURA, JARRETT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>> WITH US, BARBARA McQUAID, LAW PROFESSOR AND JOYCE VANCE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, LAW PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, BOTH ARE MSNBC LEGAL ANALYSTS. ALSO WITH US, NBC ANCHOR KATY TUR WHO WAS IN THE COURTROOM FOR YESTERDAY'S CROSS EXAMINATION. LET ME START WITH YOU, KATY, WHAT WAS IT LIKE IN THERE? >> THAT MEA CULPA PODCAST MOMENT, THAT WAS A STRIKING MOMENT BECAUSE UP UNTIL THEN, THE JURY HAD JUST BEEN HEARING MICHAEL COHEN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY AND I HAVE TO SAY, I KNOW MICHAEL COHEN REALLY WELL, A LOT OF REPORTERS DO, HE'S -- I THINK ANYBODY WHO WATCHES TELEVISION PROBABLY KNOWS MICHAEL COHEN WELL, HE'S GOT A VERY BIG PERSONALITY, HE'S LOUD, HE'S -- CAN BE ABRASIVE AND INSIDE THE COURTROOM, HE WAS VERY SUBDUED, HE WAS VERY CALM, SERENE, ALMOST HAD A HANG DOG QUALITY TO HIM. MAYBE NOT SERENE, DEFLATED IS THE WAY I WOULD DESCRIBE HIM, ANSWERING TODD BLANCHE'S QUESTIONS WITH YES, SIR, NO, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT FOR THE MOST PART. THEN THERE WAS THAT MOMENT WHERE TODD BLANCHE AND THE DEFENSE PLAYED THAT PODCAST, THAT MEA CULPA PODCAST AND YOU HEARD MICHAEL COHEN'S VOICE YELLING AND SAYING HOW MUCH HE WOULD LOVE TO SEE DONALD TRUMP BEHIND BARS, AND THE CONTRAST BETWEEN MICHAEL COHEN ON THE STAND AND THAT PODCAST WAS SO STRIKING THAT THAT WAS A MOMENT THAT THE JURY REALLY DID REACT. NOW, DID THEY REACT BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE COHEN OR DID THEY REACT JUST BECAUSE OF THE INCREDIBLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT HE WAS LIKE IN TESTIMONY, WHAT HE'S LIKE IN HIS PODCAST, THAT'S UNCLEAR. FOR THE MOST PART, AS I WAS WATCHING THE JURY, I HAD MY EYES PRETTY HEAVILY ON THEM DURING MUCH OF THE TIME I WAS IN THE COURTROOM, THEY WERE PAYING ATTENTION. THEY WERE FOLLOWING TODD BLANCHE, GOING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN HIM AND MICHAEL COHEN, THEY ALMOST DIDN'T LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP WHATSOEVER, I SAW ONE OR TWO GLANCES TOWARD DONALD TRUMP AS HE WAS SITTING ON THE DEFENSE AT THE DEFENSE TABLE, BUT MOSTLY THEY WERE PAYING ATTENTION CLOSELY TO THE TESTIMONY, VERY STONE-FACED, REALLY COULDN'T READ ANY REACTION ON THEIR FACE, BESIDES THAT MOMENT OF THE PODCAST, THERE WAS ONE OTHER MOMENT AND THAT WAS WHEN TODD BLANCHE BEFORE LUNCH BROKE WHEN HE GOT UP THERE AND HE WAS BUILDING TOWARD MICHAEL COHEN HAVING A FAULTY MEMORY, ABOUT AN ESSENTIAL PHONE CALL THAT HE SAYS HE HAD BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP IN LATE OCTOBER WHERE HE TOLD THEM THE STORMY DANIELS MATTER WAS RESOLVED, IT WAS CLOSED, HE HAD DEALT WITH IT, HE TESTIFIED TO THIS WHEN THE PROSECUTION WAS ON DIRECT, AND HE WAS EMPHATIC, HE HAD NO WAVERING WHATSOEVER, TODD BLANCHE WAS ABLE TO POINT OUT THAT DURING THE TIME THAT HE -- DURING THE SURROUNDING TIME OF THAT PHONE CALL, HE WAS HAVING AN ISSUE WITH A 14-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO WAS HARASSING HIM, AND HE WAS SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO KEITH SCHILLER, AND THEY TRIED TO POINT OUT THAT MICHAEL COHEN DIDN'T ACTUALLY REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DONALD TRUMP, HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH KEITH SCHILLER, SCHILLER NEVER PASSED THE PHONE TO DONALD TRUMP AND THE WHOLE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT THIS 14-YEAR-OLD BOY. AND COHEN ON THE WITNESS STAND ADMITTED THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN ALSO ABOUT THE 14-YEAR-OLD BOY, STILL SAID HE BELIEVES HE SPOKE WITH DONALD TRUMP, BUT THERE WAS WAVERING IN HIS MEMORY THERE AND THAT WAS A MOMENT AS TODD BLANCHE RAISED HIS VOICE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND SAID THAT WAS A LIE, ALMOST IN A HOLLYWOOD DEPICTION OF A GOTCHA MOMENT IN COURT, THAT WAS WHEN THE JURORS REALLY REACTED. I SAW SMILES ON FACES, I SAW EYEBROWS RAISED, BUT, AGAIN, WHAT ARE THEY REACTING TO? ARE THEY REACTING TO TODD BLANCHE SUDDENLY RAISING HIS VOICE AND GETTING THEATRICAL OR ARE THEY REACTING TO MICHAEL COHEN'S WAVERING MEMORY? >> YEAH, AND, JOYCE, YOU KNOW, ONE IS STRUCK BY -- THIS HAS BECOME SUCH A BIG ISSUE, THE CASE IS NOT ABOUT MICHAEL COHEN, THOUGH MICHAEL COHEN PLAYS A KEY PART IN IT. WHAT KIND OF IMPACT DO YOU THINK THIS 2016 OCTOBER CALL COULD HAVE ON THE ENTIRE CASE? >> SO, THIS CASE IS A LOT EASIER FOR PROSECUTORS TO WIN IF THE JURY BELIEVES MICHAEL COHEN. AND JURIES WILL, I THINK, ACCEPT ALLEGATIONS THAT WITNESSES HAVE LIED IN THE PAST, BUT THAT THEY HAD A MOMENT IN THEIR LIVES WHERE THEY'RE NOW ON A BETTER TRACK AND THEY'RE COMMITTED TO TELLING THE JURY THE TRUTH. IF THE DEFENSE VERSION OF THIS STORY HOLDS THAT MICHAEL COHEN LIED TO THE JURY ABOUT THIS CALL, THE PROSECUTION IS IN TROUBLE. BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS HERE, COHEN GAVE A PLAUSIBLE ONE ON THE WITNESS STAND, SAYING, WELL, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I TALKED TO SCHILLER FIRST, BUT THEN HE PASSED THE PHONE TO TRUMP. PROSECUTORS WILL DO REDIRECT TO CLEAN THIS UP AND CLARIFY THE SITUATION. THEY'LL VERY LIKELY ARGUE THAT IF COHEN WAS MAKING A STORY UP, HE WOULD HAVE JUST PICKED ONE OF ANY NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS HE PLACED DIRECTLY TO TRUMP. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO PEG THE STORY OF THIS PARTICULAR CALL TO A PHONE CALL THAT WAS PLACED FIRST TO KEITH SCHILLER, THE BODYGUARD. SO THOSE SORTS OF ARGUMENTS AND THOSE SORTS OF CLARIFICATIONS CAN COME TOGETHER TO RESURRECT THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS WHO STUMBLES ON CROSS EXAMINATION. >> SO, BARBARA, WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CLEANUP, RIGHT, FOR THE PROSECUTION ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE BECAUSE IT SEEMS AS THOUGH COHEN IS THE ONE, THE ONLY ONE SO FAR WE HAVE BEEN SEEING ON THE STAND THAT TIES DONALD TRUMP DIRECTLY TO KNOWLEDGE, INTENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE ON THIS. >> YES, SO, I THINK THE PROSECUTION HAS TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO PORTRAY THIS. THIS IS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROSECUTION EXPECTED WOULD HAPPEN WITH A WITNESS LIKE MICHAEL COHEN. IT IS LIKELY THE REASON THE FEDS WALKED AWAY FROM IT. WHENEVER YOU USE A COOPERATOR WHO HAS BAGGAGE, THIS IS WHAT CROSS EXAMINATION LOOKS LIKE. SO, THERE IS NO SURPRISE HERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, A JURY WHO HAS NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE, MAYBE THEY FALL FOR IT WHEN SOMEONE LIKE TODD BLANCHE STARTS RAISING HIS VOICE AND CLAIMING HE'S LYING. THESE ARE ALL THE SAME TRICKS YOU SEE ALL THE TIME BY DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. SO, IF YOU'RE THE PROSECUTION, DO YOU SORT OF VALIDATE THIS MOMENT BY TRYING TO CLEAN IT UP ON REDIRECT OR JUST LET IT GO AND THEN IN CLOSING ARGUMENT ARGUE BOTH OF THESE THINGS ARE COMPLETELY PLAUSIBLY TRUE. HE CALLED THEM ABOUT THE 14-YEAR-OLD BOY, WHILE HE'S THERE, HE SAYS YOU'RE WITH THE BOSS, PUT ME ON WITH HIM, HEY, BOSS, I TOOK CARE OF THAT THING. THAT HE CAUGHT HIM IN A LIE IS RATHER RIDICULOUS. IF THE PROSECUTION IS CONCERNED, THEY WOULD RAISE THIS AGAIN, ASK MICHAEL COHEN, NOW, THEY SAY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 14-YEAR-OLD BOY. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. WE TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE, YES. WE ALSO TALKED -- I INFORMED MR. TRUMP THAT THE DEAL WAS TAKEN CARE OF. SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN ADDRESS EITHER IN REDIRECT OR IN CLOSING. I THINK FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE, IT SEEMS LIKE AN EXCITING MOMENT BECAUSE THE REST HAS BEEN SO DULL. BUT, TO ME, THIS IS JUST THE WAY DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SOMETIMES TRIED TO MAKE A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLE HILL. >> THE FACT THAT THE CALL WAS 90 SECONDS LONG DOES, YOU KNOW, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME EXPLANATION, RIGHT HOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD HAPPEN IN 90
