ATTORNEY ALVIN BRAGG COULD BE TRUMP'S FIRST AND LAST CRIMINAL TRIAL BEFORE THE ELECTION. JOINING ME NOW FROM A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, LEGAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST FOR POLITICO MAGAZINE. MSNBC JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, ANTHONY COLEY, DIRECTOR OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND ADVISER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND . RENATO, HAVE THEY MADE IT CLEAR THIS IS ALSO ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND NOT JUST COVERING UP AN AFFAIR? >> THEY MADE THAT FRONT AND CENTER IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE THAT CASE THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL, AND IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED TO SHOW IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS A FELONY CHARGE AS OPPOSED TO A MISDEMEANOR, SO I THINK WE WILL SEE MORE EVIDENCE ALONG THOSE LINES AND MORE ARGUMENT ALONG THOSE LINES IN THE WEEKS TO COME TO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY ARE TRYING TO SHOW CONCERTED EFFORT TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION, AND WE HEARD FROM THE FIRST IS, DAVID PECKER , THAT THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THAT EFFORT [ INAUDIBLE ] >> ANTHONY, THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER PUBLISHER, DAVID PECKER, HE WAS ON THE STAND FOR FOUR DAYS. DID THE DEFENSE DISCREDIT ANY OF HIS STORY DURING CROSS- EXAMINATION? >> NOT REALLY, JONATHAN. THIS WAS THE PROSECUTION'S GAME. THEY NEEDED TO DISPENSE THIS FALSE NOTION THAT THIS CASE WAS A MINOR BOOKKEEPING ISSUE AS DONALD TRUMP SAYS, OR THAT IT WAS ABOUT HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS, WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF ARE NOT ILLEGAL. THIS IS A BROAD CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO KEEP CRITICAL PERMISSION FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IT STARTED IN AUGUST, 2015, JUST WEEKS AFTER DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT, AND IT STARTED IN THIS MEETING AT TRUMP TOWER WHERE DAVID PECKER WAS SUMMONED, HE HAD MICHAEL COHEN IN THE ROOM, AND AS YOU NOTED HE DECIDED, HE PROMISED TRUMP THERE THAT HE WOULD BE HIS EYES AND EARS. SO THROUGHOUT THIS CAMPAIGN FOR ANY TYPES OF ALLEGATIONS AND AFFAIRS, I THINK UYGHURS SAW THIS WEEK, A CLEAR WIN FOR THE PROSECUTION, DAVID PECKER TOOK THEM INSIDE THE ROOM AND MADE ALL THESE THINGS VERY REAL. >> RENATO, SOMEONE ELSE INSIDE THE ROOM, HOW DID MICHAEL COHEN'S BANKER, GARY FARRO, PLAY IN? HE TAKES THE STAND AGAIN, ON TUESDAY. >> THAT'S RIGHT. FIRST OF ALL ONE THING THAT DOES MATTER ALTHOUGH THIS CASE ISN'T ENTIRELY ABOUT FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS, THAT IS AT THE CORE OF THIS, BUT REALLY WHAT THIS WIN WILL SHOW US, IT WILL PROVE THESE PAYMENTS TOOK PLACE. HE IS GOING TO BACK UP AND CORROBORATE TEST MANY OF MICHAEL COHEN. WE ALL KNOW MICHAEL COHEN HAS A CREDIBILITY ISSUE, GIVEN HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS. HE IS GOING TO CORROBORATE THAT, AND HE'S GOING TO SHOW WHAT THE PAYMENTS WERE FOR THAT THEY WEREN'T PAYMENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES, THAT THEY WERE IN FACT HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS, AND THAT LEADS [ INAUDIBLE ] >> ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU, RENATO. JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN HAS SCHEDULED ANOTHER HEARING ON TRUMP'S GAG ORDER. WHY DIDN'T HE RULE AFTER THE FIRST 10 TIMES HE ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED THE GAG ORDER.? >> THERE IS AN IMAGE OF THE SWORD OF DAMOCLES HANGING OVER YOUR HEAD. I THINK THE JUDGE WANTS THIS RULING HANGING OVER THE HEAD OVER TRUMP'S LAWYER. TRUMP'S LAWYERS NOW AT THE END OF THE DAY, ASK EVIDENCE THAT COMES IN, THEY REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE JUDGE'S BAD SIDE, AND HE IS USING THIS AS A TOOL TO TRY AND GET THEM TO REIN IN THEIR CLIENT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. >> OH, RENATO, THAT'S REALLY GOOD. I'M SORRY.[ LAUGHTER ] I LOVE IT WHEN I HEAR STUFF I HAVE NOT HEARD BEFORE. ANTHONY, I WANT TO TURN TO THE TRUMP'S IMMUNITY CLAIM . I WANT TO READ THIS. I'M NOT FOCUSED ON THE HERE AND NOW OF THIS CASE. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE. ANTHONY, WHY SHOULDN'T I BE CONCERNED THAT HE ISN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THEM? >> RIGHT, THAT IS REALLY A HEAD- SCRATCHER. MOST OF WHAT YOU SEE IN COURT CASES, AND CERTAINLY THE SUPREME COURT, JUSTICES, JUDGES, ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND WHAT HE'S SAYING HERE HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE SCRATCHING THEIR HEAD. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING TO PLAY OUT, BUT, JONATHAN, WHAT DISTURBED ME MORE IS THE FACT THIS COULD GET PUSHED BACK DOWN TO THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL. THAT WOULD ACHIEVE WHAT DONALD TRUMP REALLY WANTS. HE'S NOT TRYING TO WIN THIS CASE ON THE MERITS AT ALL. HE IS TRYING TO THROW SAND IN THE EARS OF THE CASE, TO SLOW DOWN, TO KEEP IT FROM BEING FULLY ADJUDICATED BEFORE THE ELECTION. AT THE END OF THE DAY I THINK IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DOING WHAT WE ALL DID IN 2020, AND THAT IS GOING TO THE POLLS. >> RENATO, I CAN'T LET YOU GO IN THE SEGMENT WITHOUT ASKING THIS QUESTION COULD THE JUSTICES TALKED ABOUT OFFICIAL ACTS, AND LAWFUL ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT. IS AN ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT CONSIDERED LAWFUL BY NATURE? WHO DETERMINES THAT? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. AND THAT REALLY IS GOING TO REQUIRE FACT-FINDING BY THE JUDGE. THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING A MOMENT AGO. IS THAT ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD HAVE A HEARING IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE, IN THAT YOU MAKE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS WHETHER THIS IS AN OFFICIAL ACT. REALLY, THAT'S WHY THIS IS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. >> WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A WHOLE SEGMENT JUST ON THIS LAWFUL, YOU KNOW, LAWFUL ACTS, LAWFUL ORDERS FROM THE PRESIDENT. BECAUSE I SEEM TO REMEMBER READING SOMEWHERE THAT IF THE PRESIDENT GIVES AN ORDER IT'S CONSIDERED A LAWFUL, LIKE, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW IT, OTHERWISE YOU ARE DISOBEYING THE
