>>> DURING THE FIRST DAY OF MICHAEL COHEN'S CROSS- EXAMINATION, THE DEFENSE AIMS TO MAKE ONE THING VERY CLEAR. MICHAEL COHEN HAS ALLEGEDLY BEEN OBSESSED WITH DONALD TRUMP EVEN BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT. HERE IS DEFENSE ATTORNEY TODD BLANCHE. YOU WERE OBSESSED WITH DONALD TRUMP, WEREN'T YOU? COHEN, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD USE THE WORD OBSESSED. I ADMIRED HIM TREMENDOUSLY. BLANCHE, IN YOUR FIRST BIKE YOU DISCOVERED -- FIRST BOOK YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF AS BEING OBSESSED, CORRECT? COHEN. THAT'S CORRECT. JOINING US NOW IS LISA RUBIN, OUR MSNBC LEGAL CORRESPONDENT INSIDE THE COURT IS TODAY AND CHARLES COLEMAN, FORMER PROSECUTOR AND NOW CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY. LISA, LET ME START WITH YOU. THE IDEA THAT MICHAEL COHEN WAS LIKE A SINGLE WHITE FEMALE CHARACTER IN TRUMP LEAD, IS THE POINT OF THAT TO SUGGEST THAT COHEN MIGHT HAVE ACTED ON HIS OWN TO MAKE THE STORY GO AWAY FOR DONALD TRUMP? >> YES. >> DID THEY DO THAT? >> NO, I DON'T THINK THEY DID, ALEX. I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO SHOW HE WAS MOTIVATED TO DO IT ALONE AND WAS SO OBSESSED WITH TRUMP THAT HAVING BEEN SPURNED BY HIM HE IS ENGAGING IN A SCORCHED-EARTH STRATEGY TO MAKE THE MAN'S LIFE MISERABLE IN A WAY THAT IS UNDESERVING OF WHATEVER TRUMP IS DONE THAT COULD BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED AND I DON'T THINK THEY SUCCEEDED. I WROTE DOWN, AFTER READING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, ALL OF THE THEMES THEY FLOATED TODAY AND NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS A WINNER TODAY ON THIS CROSS. HE IS MEDIA HURY, BUT HE WAS BEFORE, TOO. HE IS WEALTHY. YES, HE WAS BEFORE, TOO. HE WOULD NOT TAKE DIRECTION FROM THE D.A. IN TERMS OF SHUTTING UP ABOUT THE CASE, OKAY, BUT DOES THAT MAKE HIM NON-CREDIBLE? THEY INSINUATED HE WAS LEAKING INFORMATION TO THE PRESS AND NEVER GOT ANYWHERE WITH THAT. UNLESS THEY CAN ESTABLISH THAT HAPPENED AND WAS DESTRUCTIVE TO THE CASE, I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT GOES. HE IS A PERSON WHO WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO SERVED JAIL TIME FOR CRIMES RELATED TO THE ONES BEING CHARGED AND HE WAS SENT BACK TO PRISON DURING COVID AFTER HE WAS RELEASED ON HOME CONFINEMENT. IF HE HAS AN AX TO GRIND, IT IS A DESERVED ONE. HE HAS A BINDER. THE D.A.S OFFICE GAVE HIM A BINDER WITH HIS PLEA ALLOCUTION IN IT. THAT IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THEM BIASED? NO, THAT IS TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION. THE FINAL ONE IS THAT HE MESSED WITH HIS PHONES BEFORE HE GAVE THEM TO THE D.A.S OFFICE. THE INSINUATION IS THAT THE FBI RETURNED THEM TO HIM IN 2020. THE D.A.S OFFICE DID NOT ASK FOR THEM UNTIL 2023 AND THE INSINUATION IS THAT COHEN OR AN INVESTIGATOR IN THE D.A.S OFFICE SOMEHOW MESSED WITH THE FUNDS TO EDIT THAT DECEMBER 6, 2016 PHONE CALL THERE WHICH TRUMP MAKES THE ADMISSIONS IN THE CASE. I REST. >> CHARLES. >> SO, THE DEFENSE STRATEGY HERE IS THAT THEY HAVE NO STRATEGY AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THEY DO NOT HAVE STRONG FACTS. THIS IS CLEAR. WE ALL KNEW THIS GOING IN. SO IN ORDER TO TRY TO GET TO THE POINT OF A HUNG JURY OR A MISTRIAL, YOUR STRATEGY IS CONFUSION AND MISDIRECTION AND THAT IS EVERYTHING THEY HAVE BEEN DOING WITH RESPECT TO THE DIFFERENT LEGAL THEORIES THEY HAVE TRIED TO FLOAT. NO I HAVE BEEN ONE AS AN ATTORNEY WHO IS LOATH TO CRITIQUE AND CRITICIZE OTHER ATTORNEYS IN TERMS OF HOW THEY TRY CASES, BUT WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT TODD BLANCHE MAY BE IN OVER HIS HEAD BECAUSE THIS IS STATE COURT. I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. HE HAS SPENT A LOT OF HIS CAREER AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM BEING A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN STATE COURT, PRIMARILY BECAUSE AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR YOU DO NOT TRY MANY CASES. YOU SETTLE CASES A LOT AND IN THE CASES YOU ACTUALLY TRY, MANY OF THE DEFENDANTS DO NOT TESTIFY. QUITE FRANKLY YOU ARE NOT IS USED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AS YOU WOULD BE IF YOU WERE AN ATTORNEY WHO PRACTICES IN STATE COURT. THAT IS THE VALUE OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK IN TERMS OF DONALD TRUMP FEDERAL CASES, HE MIGHT BE THE GUY, BUT IN THIS SITUATION I FEEL LIKE NECHELES WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER CHOICE TO CONDUCT THIS CROSS- EXAMINATION. >> I WATCHED THIS. YOU KNOW, I WAS IN THE COURTROOM AND THE OVERFLOW ROOM DURING CROSS. I FOUND MYSELF HAVING A HARD TIME FOLLOWING IT, BUT ALSO I AM NOT THE MEDIAN JUROR. ONE THING THAT WAS CLEAR TO ME AND DID SEEM EFFECTIVE IS COHEN SEEMED SHIFTY. HE WAS TAKING SIPS OF WATER. I WOULD DESCRIBE HIM AS SQUARELY, RIGHT? AND CONFRONTED WITH THINGS HE HAD IN THE PAST. THERE WERE MOMENTS WHERE YOU FELT LIKE HE WAS RELUCTANTLY MAY BE GETTING TO THE TRUTH, BUT NOT PARTICULARLY FORTHCOMING. DOES THAT ADD UP TO THEM EVISCERATING THE CORE FACTS? NO. DOES IT TO MY MIND TO DEFEAT OR GET AT THE BURDEN? NO, BUT I AM CURIOUS WHAT YOU THOUGHT AS SOMEONE ALSO WATCHING. HOW MUCH THAT MATTERS AND WHETHER THAT IS ENOUGH TO GET YOU WHERE YOU NEED TO GO. >> I THOUGHT THE WORST MOMENT OF THE DAY WAS ON DIRECT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE APPRECIATED IT. AT THE CIVIL FRAUD TRIAL HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE PLEA HE TOOK AND HAS INSISTED THAT WHILE HE PLED GUILTY TO TAX EVASION HE DID NOT REALLY COMMIT THE CRIME. HE WAS ASKED BASICALLY WERE YOU LYING THEN OR ARE YOU LYING NOW AND HE SAID SQUARELY ON THE STAND, I WAS LYING. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THAT TESTIMONY TODAY, ON THE OTHER HAND, HE GAVE A VERY DIFFERENT ANSWER AND SAID I'M NOT CONTESTING THE FACTS, BUT I DID NOT LIKE THE PROCESS. THAT WON'T PLAY WELL ON CROSS. >> ULTIMATELY I THINK A LOT OF THAT DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT THE PROSECUTION TRIES TO PUT FORWARD ABOUT HIM ON SUMMATION. ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO SELL HIM AS THIS REFORMED GUY WHO REALLY STOOD UP FOR COUNTRY AND LIBERTY AND FREEDOM AND TRUTH AND JUSTICE OR ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THIS IS A GUY IN CAHOOTS WITH DONALD TRUMP. A GUY WHO MAY HAVE BEEN -- AND NOW HE HAS FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT, THAT THIS WAS NOT TO HIS BENEFIT AND HE CHANGED HIS TUNE? THAT IS REALLY WHERE IT ALL COMES INTO PLAY. I THINK WHERE THEY ENDED ON DIRECT,
