>>> IT'S CLEAR NOW THAT THE GLOVES ARE OFF AT DONALD TRUMP'S HUSH MONEY TRIAL, WITH STORMY DANIELS BACK ON THE STAND TOMORROW, BOTH SIDES ARE DEALING WITH A COURTROOM THAT IS NOW IN SOME WAYS REFLECTING THE DEFENDANT, ANGRY, BOMBASTIC, AND AT TIMES, CRUDE. AFTER WHAT THE "WASHINGTON POST" DESCRIBES AS A DAY OF RAGE, COURT TRANSCRIPTS NOW SHOW THAT JUDGE MERCHAN CALLED TRUMP'S LAWYERS TO THE BENCH TO WARN THAT HE IS CURSING AUDIBLY AND HE IS SHAKING HIS HEAD VISIBLY, AND THAT'S CONTEMPTUOUS. IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INTIMIDATE THE WITNESS AND THE JURY CAN SEE THAT. THE JUDGE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT DANIELS WAS DIFFICULT TO CONTROL, GIVING GRAPHIC TESTIMONY THAT WILL CONTINUE TOMORROW ABOUT WHAT SHE SAYS WAS A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER AT A GOLF TOURNAMENT IN 2006, A MEETING THAT AS "THE NEW YORK TIMES" PUTS IT, SHOULD SHAPE AMERICAN HISTORY. WITH THE STAKES AND EMOTIONS SO HIGH, AND GIVEN THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT SEX, BUT ABOUT FINANCIAL RECORDS, WHAT DO LAWYERS DO NOW? JOINING ME IS VETERAN JOURNALIST, JACOB WEISBURG WITH THE OUTLET PUSHKIN, ONE OF THE FIRST JOURNALISTS TO SPEAK WITH STORMY DANIELS IN 2016 WHEN HE WAS EDITOR AND CHIEF AT "SLATE," AND ALSO WITH US, YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN, SHE WAS ACTUALLY IN THE COURTROOM FOR DANIELS' TESTIMONY. GOOD TO HAVE BOTH OF YOU HERE. JACOB, I NOTED IN AN INTERVIEW, YOU SAID THAT WHILE STORMY DANIELS' TESTIMONY WAS REMARKABLY CONSISTENT TO WHAT SHE TOLD YOU BACK IN 2016, IN TERMS OF THE FACTS, YOU THINK HER FEELINGS HAVE CHANGED. TELL US YOUR IMPRESSIONS. >> YES, THE STORY SHE TOLD ABOUT HER ENCOUNTER WITH DONALD TRUMP IS THE SAME STORY SHE TOLD ME IN 2016, DOWN TO ALL THE DETAILS, EXCEPT THERE ARE SOME MORE DETAILS SHE DIDN'T TELL ME BACK THEN. BUT BACK THEN, HER ATTITUDE TOWARDS IT WAS THAT IT WAS NO BIGGIE. SHE DIDN'T LIKE HIM, AND IT WASN'T A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE, BUT AT THAT POINT, SHE WASN'T SAYING IT AFFECTED HER NEGATIVELY OR SHE WAS UPSET ABOUT IT. AND I THINK AS SHE'S HAD TIME TO PROCESS IT AND SHE'S CERTAINLY WELL WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO CHANGE HER FEELINGS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, SHE FEELS MORE NEGATIVE ABOUT IT. I THINK SHE DIDN'T USED THE TERM COERCION, BUT WISHED IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. DIDN'T KNOW WHY SHE WAS THERE, AND REGRETS IT. >> THERE IS THIS ONGOING DEBATE ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT HER TESTIMONY WAS, WHETHER SHE SAID TOO MUCH. NOT JUST LOCALLY, BUT EMOTIONALLY. RIGHT? SEVERAL OBSERVERS HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT HOW IT HAD ECHOES OF SOME SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES THAT THEY HAVE COVERED. ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT. LET'S SAY IT, A SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE. SHE HAS ALWAYS SAID THIS WAS CONSENSUAL. BUT JESSICA BENNETT SURPRISED IT. SHE BLACKED OUT, AND LAY NAKED. SHE FELT LIKE THE ROOM MOVED IN SLOW MOTION. SHE SAID SHE FUMBLED WITH HER SHOES, GOLD HEELS, SHE HAD TROUBLED FASTENING BECAUSE HER HANDS WERE SHAKING SO HARD. TO THE POINT OF THE MISTRIAL THAT WAS ASKED FOR BUT NOT GRANTED, WHAT WERE YOUR OBSERVATIONS, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE JURY AS SHE WAS DESCRIBING THIS, AND ALSO DONALD TRUMP. >> CAN WE TAKE A MOMENT AND REMIND FOLKS THAT WHEN I WAS SITTING IN THE COURTROOM, THIS WAS BEING DESCRIBED AND THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS SITTING 8 FEET AWAY FROM STORMY DANIELS WHEN SHE TALKED ABOUT THAT ALLEGED NIGHT THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2006. TWO ROWS BEHIND HIM WAS HIS SON, BORIS EPSHTEYN, AS FOCUSED AS WE WERE, ON THE GOOGLE DOC WE FOLLOW, VERY CLOSELY EVERY SINGLE DAY, THE JURY WAS INTENTLY FOCUSED ON HER TESTIMONY. I MEAN, THEIR BODIES WERE TURNED TOWARDS HER AS SHE RECOUNTED EVERY HOUR, EVERY MINUTE OF THAT DAY, FROM THE MOMENT IN WHICH THEY MET. THE ISSUE WITH SOME OF HER TESTIMONY, THOUGH, WHEN IT COMES TO THE JURY WAS AFTER THAT NIGHT IN 2006, THAT ALLEGEDLY SHE SAID THAT THEY HAD SEX. IT WAS THE RECOUNTING OF THE MOMENTS IN WHICH SHE WAS IN THE PARKING LOT AND SAYS SHE WAS APPROACHED, AND SHE WAS THREATENED AND SHE WAS SCARED. IT WAS THE RECOUNTING OF WHEN SHE DECIDED TO SHARE HER STORY, WHY SHE DECIDED TO SHARE HER STORY, AND PART OF THE REASON THAT I RECOGNIZED THAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE JURY THAT THEY WERE KIND OF LOSING ATTENTION. AND NOT NECESSARILY EMPATHIZING, IT SEEMED WITH HER, WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE TAKING CUES FROM THE JUDGE, IT SEEMED, AND JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN CONTINUOUSLY CHIDED HER. I'M SURE AS YOU SAW IN THE DOCUMENT, THERE WERE MOMENTS, MANY MOMENTS IN WHICH THERE WERE OBJECTIONS AND JUDGE MERCHAN SAID SUSTAINED. AT ONE POINT HE SAID SUSTAINED WITHOUT AN OBJECTION, AND ALL OF THIS WAS BECAUSE HE FELT AS IF SHE WAS KIND OF DRONING ON, AND GIVING MORE EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED FOR HER TESTIMONY. >> AT WHAT POINT DID DONALD TRUMP MAKE THE KIND OF COMMENTS THAT JUAN MERCHAN SENT HIS LAWYERS TO THE BENCH. >> I'M LOOKING AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD, AND HE'S FOUR TO FIVE ROWS AHEAD OF ME. I SAW A LOT OF TALKING TO TODD BLANCHE, MOMENTS IN WHICH THERE WAS A BENCH MEETING, AND BOVE WOULD TALK TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT, LIKELY BRINGING HIM UP TO SPEED AS TO WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND WHY THERE WAS A BENCH MEETING CALLED. HE SEEMED AT TIMES TO BE MORE ANIMATED. IN JURY SELECTION, IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRIAL, THE FORMER PRESIDENT WAS NOT AS INVOLVED. WE HAD SOME OF THAT REPORTING SAYING HIS EYES WERE CLOSED. AT ONE POINT, I'M CLOSING MY BEAUTIFUL BLUE EYES, TRYING TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THE COUNTRY GREAT AGAIN. PARAPHRASING THERE. NONETHELESS, HE WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THIS TESTIMONY. HE SEEMED TO BE WATCHING HER TESTIMONY FROM A MONITOR THAT IS IN FRONT OF HIM, JUST SO YOU KNOW, SHE CAN'T NECESSARILY SEE HIM. THERE IS LIKE 2 FEET OF KIND OF WALL BETWEEN WHERE SHE IS AND TESTIFYING AND WHERE DONALD TRUMP IS. SHE HAS TO LOOK AROUND THE CORNER, AND WHEN SHE WAS ASKED, DO YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT IN THIS ROOM, DONALD J. TRUMP, YEAH, I SEE HIM, SHE LOOKED AROUND AND JOKING ABOUT IT AND POINTED AROUND THE CORNER. I COULDN'T SEE THE MOMENT IN WHICH HE WAS USING THOSE REMARKS AND THE REASON WHY IT WAS. >> HE TALKED A LOT, YOU SAID, AT LEAST TO HIS LAWYERS. >> HE TALKED A LOT. >> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT STORMY DANIELS HAS BEEN FACE TO FACE WITH TRUMP IN YEARS. OBSERVERS SAY SHE WAS NERVOUS. WE KNOW FROM LOOKING, FOLLOWING THE DOC THAT SHE SPOKE SO QUICKLY, THE JUDGE ASKED HER SEVERAL TIMES TO SLOW DOWN. DOES ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEMEANOR SURPRISE YOU? DOES SHE SOUND LIKE THE PERSON WHO YOU TALKED WITH? >> WELL, VERY MUCH SO. I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE SEEN NOW AS A KIND OF WHISTLEBLOWER WHO DID THIS BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP DID SOMETHING BAD THAT SHE WANTED TO EXPOSE, AND THAT'S THE ONE PLACE WHERE HER TESTIMONY DIDN'T REALLY MATCH MY EXPERIENCE. I THINK SHE WANTED TO SELL HER STORY IN 2016. AND MY IMPRESSION IS SHE WAS INDIFFERENT WHETHER SHE SOLD IT TO THE PRESS OR SOLD IT TO MICHAEL COHEN TO KILL THIS. SHE THOUGHT THE STORY HAD VALUE, AND SHE SORT OF BRIDLED WHEN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE DEFENSE AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. YOU KNOW, THERE IS A VERY HARD LINE THAT JUDGE MERCHAN HAS TO DRAW HERE BETWEEN WHAT DOES A JURY NEED TO KNOW TO UNDERSTAND WHAT DONALD TRUMP WANTED TO COVER UP, WHY HE PAID HUSH MONEY. HE PAID HUSH MONEY BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. WHEN DOES IT CROSS OVER INTO DETAILS THAT ARE PREJUDICE, IE STORMY DANIELS SAYING THIS IS A DISGUSTING OLD MAN, AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY UNSEE, BUT YOU CAN'T GET THE MENTAL IMAGE OUT OF YOUR HEAD. THAT IS A TOUGH LINE. SHE WASN'T GOING TO DRAW IT NOR DOES SHE HAVE TO DRAW IT. IT'S UP TO THE DEFENSE TO OBJECT AND THE JUDGE TO SAY THAT GOES OVER THE LINE. >> LOOKING TO TOMORROW, I WANT TO ASK ABOUT HER DEMEANOR BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHE AND THE PROSECUTION CLEARLY WANTED TO GET ACROSS, SHE'S NOT JUST A PORN STAR. SHE'S A BUSINESSWOMAN. SHE'S A MOTHER. SHE'S A DIRECTOR. A SURVIVOR, RIGHT? WHAT DOES THAT PART OF HER, DO YOU THINK, BRING TO THE TABLE TOMORROW. SHE'S GOING TO HAVE HAD 24 HOURS TO HAVE TAKEN A BREATH. THE JURY IS GOING TO HAVE HAD 24 HOURS TO TAKE A BREATH. THE LAWYERS HAVE 24 HOURS TO THINK ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE WITH THIS. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR IN HER DEMEANOR AND WHAT WE MIGHT SEE? >> WE SAW THIS WITH THE DEFENSE, THEY'RE GOING AFTER HER CREDIBILITY. I WOULD AGREE, IT SEEMED AS IF SHE WAS TAKING THE STANCE OF A WHISTLEBLOWER, WITH THE DEFENSE, WHEN SHE WAS BEING CROSS EXAMINED BY SUSAN NECHELES. THE JURY WAS EMPATHIZING MORE WITH HER, WHICH I THINK IS RARE IN TRIALS LIKE THIS, WE HAVE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE, WAS EMPATHIZING MORE WITH HER IN MOMENTS WHERE SHE SEEMED TO BE A WHISTLEBLOWER, VERSUS THE MOMENTS IN WHICH SHE WAS IN DIRECT WITH THE PEOPLE'S LAWYER TALKING MAINLY ABOUT KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN 2006 AND WHO SHE IS, AND WHAT IS SHE ABOUT. I THINK PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE SHE WAS PLAYING SO MUCH TO THE JURY, WHICH I DON'T THINK THE JURY NECESSARILY APPRECIATED. SHE WAS JOKING TO THE JURY, KIND OF TRYING TO GET THEM TO LAUGH AT CERTAIN THINGS THROUGHOUT. SO I EXPECT HARD CROSS-EXAMINATION, CONTINUING WITH SUSAN NECHELES. SHE WENT AFTER HER HARD. I DON'T THINK IT CAME THROUGH IN THE DOCUMENTS. IT CANNOT COME THROUGH. REDIRECT, WE CAN EXPECT, USING THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S WORDS AGAINST HIM, AND I ONLY SAY THIS BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO USE STORMY'S WORDS AGAINST HER, RIGHT, IN THE MOMENT WE TALKED ABOUT THE TWEET. SHE SAID, HE CALLED IT, YOU KNOW, CALLED THAT TO ME FIRST. HE CALLED ME A NAME FIRST. AND I EXPECT THEM TO DO THE SAME THING IN
