Grabien

HONIG: “The way, this was raised and addressed on direct is what Julia Louis-Dreyfus would call yada, yada, yada. I mean, here’s what Michael Cohen — here’s what Michael Cohen said.” [crosstalk] COATES: “George Costanza.” TAPPER: “No, no, no.” CATES: “Was it? HONIG: “It was Elaine.” TAPPER: “It was Elaine.” COATES: “Elaine?” TAPPER: “It was Elaine on yada, yada, yada.” [crosstalk] HONIG: “But here — here’s the direct testimony the way Michael Cohen explained what happened.” TAPPER: “It’s actually a girl that Costanza was dating, but — sorry.” (Laughter) HONIG: “Michael Cohen explained this whole thing, quote, ‘That’s what was owed. And I didn’t feel Mr. Trump deserve the difference.’ That’s a lot different than I stole $60,000 from my boss on the transaction at the heart of this case. And by the way, the fact that he was ever charged with larceny is important because stealing $60,000 through fraud, which would be larceny in New York State is more serious of a crime than falsifying business.”

TAPPER: “Yeah. No, it’s — it’s fascinating stuff. And I have to say, I’m still kind of reeling from the revelation that Michael Cohen stole money from the Trump Organization. And that wasn’t, at least to my knowledge, that the prosecution didn’t get that —“ COATES: “Right.” TAPPER: “— get that out earlier. Because it’s not as though, the prosecution is going to be helped by further evidence that Michael Cohen is a shady character.” COATES: “Yeah.” TAPPER: “I mean, let’s — I’ll get to the newest stuff in a second, but, like, I mean, what’s just — what’s your reaction to that news? Because that was just kind of stunning.” COATES: “I’m — I’m shocked that we are hearing it for the first time on day three of cross-examination of Michael Cohen, that the prosecution did not take the sting out, did not front it, because it goes to the heart of the actual case. It’s not just about establishing him as a liar. They’ve done that. The prosecution front did that. We knew that he has convictions. But going to the heart of what you were telling your employer about, what money you were owed and the extent of it. We’re talking about $420,000. We’ve already seen the paying instruction here.” TAPPER: “Right. This isn’t like 15 bucks.” COATES: “It’s not 15 bucks. And we — I mean, if you — if you go to the table, you can break down what was already know. We’ve known about what the breakdown of the money is, $130,000 to Daniels and her attorney. You’ve got $50,000 that’s Red Finch. This is important here. This was mentioned today, that he only gave Red Finch $20,000 and he handed them in a brown paper bag, by the way, just thinking about how odd that is.” [crosstalk] TAPPER: “And just one — and just — and just one quick note. Red Finch, is this political organization that apparently, according to Michael Cohen, helped them goose these bogus, Internet polls —“ COATES: “Right.” TAPPER: “— about which candidate is in the lead, etc., etc., and also, according to Lanny Davis, provided adoring fans for Trump’s announcement of his candidacy in June 2015. Sorry.” COATES: “Really important point to add why they say they only got 20,000 of it. He talked about —“ TAPPER: “And even though the bill was for fifty.” COATES: “$50,000. And you have $180,000, which is again, the double of these two combinations, and then a bonus for Cohen. Remember, all that we have so far to Link Donald Trump to these payments in part is the statement that quote/unquote, ‘he approved it.’ We also know — we have some — we have information about where the checks were, how it was signed, but remember, McConney, that was one of the controllers of the Trump Organization taking notes from Allen Weisselberg about the money payments. So this is part of what we’re talking about. Why this is so important here? It is because the heart of the matter is that Donald Trump was complicit, caused to have this happen and knew about the money that was going and why. It they can attach it to Michael Cohen, as somebody who is not to be trusted about the amount of money as well, then they might be able to suggest that Donald Trump had no idea what he was truly paying.” TAPPER: “Yeah.”

CEVALLOS: “There may have been a real moment here just in the last few minutes in that — Michael Cohen was caught in cross-examination. They asked him about a transaction with another company where he admitted to stealing cash from the Trump Organization. Now, throughout this trial, consider this, the prosecution has painted Michael Cohen as sort of this bumbling, pathetic character whose only sins were his misguided, undying loyalty to Donald Trump. Did you lie to Congress? Yes, I did. But I did it because I was in the Sway of the svengali hold of Donald Trump. But now you see something a little different. Now, there’s an argument to be made that actually you’re just an opportunistic thief. You literally pocketed money from your employer. And I — as a — as an attorney, the idea, first of all, of paying in bags of cash is — look defense attorneys, I do not like to accept cash. I — I — frankly, I refuse to accept cash. It’s only asking for trouble. But dealing in these — these sandwich bags of cash, these brown paper bags of cash to pay people is already problematic. But the idea that he would just grab a wad of cash and stick it in his pocket, I think has moved Michael Cohen from this figure where he’s part Tom Hagen from ‘The Godfather,’ but really more like Fredo Corleone, to now this guy is just a thief. And I — I bet that comes up in closing a lot, the fact that he just admitted that he would willingly steal from his own client.”

BRZEZINSKI: “How do you think the President did at Morehouse?” Sharpton: “I thought it was a very good speech. I thought that he really made some very key points, including his outright called for the immediate ceasefire. But I also think where he listed things like the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the Voting Rights Act, specific things about how black unemployment is down, you know, in terms of record unemployment, so it was a substantive speech, and it was inspirational. And it was at a place that many of us see a sacred ground. Martin Luther King Jr. Came from Morehouse among many others, and I thought it was the place to do it. I thought the students protested, it was a small amount, but they did it with the dignity that did not scar the school, but at the same time, respecting the graduation. So I thought it was a win-win for both the students and for the president.”

O’DONNELL (voice-over): “...in 1936 into a family of Italian immigrants. Before entering the seminary, Bergoglio worked as a chemist. His own personal formula is simplicity. He still wears the plain silver cross he wore as the archbishop of Buenos Aires, though it’s not what Francis wears, but where he lives that set the tone for his papacy eleven years ago. Instead of a palace above St. Peter’s square, he chose the Vatican guest house, Casa Santa Marta, as his home. We met him there under a painting of the Virgin Mary. Surrounded by the sacred, Francis has not forsaken his sense of humor, even when discussing serious subjects like the migrant crisis.” O’DONNELL: “My grandparents were Catholic, immigrated from Northern Ireland in the 1930s to the United States seeking a better life. And I know your family, too, fled fascism, and you have talked about, with migrants, many of them children, that you encourage governments to build bridges, not walls.” Pope Francis (via translator): “Migration is something that makes a country grow. They say that you, Irish, migrated and brought the whiskey, and that the Italians migrated and brought the mafia. It’s a joke, don’t take it badly. But migrants sometimes suffer a lot. They suffer a lot.” O’DONNELL: “I grew up in Texas, and I don’t know if you’ve heard, but the state of Texas is attempting to shut down a Catholic charity on the border with Mexico that offers undocumented migrants humanitarian assistance. What do you think of that?” Pope Francis (via translator): “That is Madness. Sheer Madness. To close the border and leave them there, that is Madness. The migrant has to be received. Thereafter you see how you’re going to deal with them. Maybe you have to send them back, I don’t know, but each case ought to be considered humanely, right? O’DONNELL (voice-over): “A few months after becoming pope, Francis went to a small Italian island near Africa to meet migrants fleeing poverty and war.” O’DONNELL: “Your first trip as pope was on island of Lampedusa, where you talked about suffering. And I was so struck when you talked about the globalization of indifference. What is happening?” Pope Francis (via translator): “Do you want me to state it plainly? People Wash their hands. There are so many Pontius Pilates on the loose out there, who see what is happening, the wars, the injustice, the crime, ‘That’s okay, that’s okay,’ and Wash their hands. It’s indifference. That is what happens when the heart hardens and becomes indifferent. Please, we have to get our hearts to feel again. We cannot remain indifferent in the face of such human dramas. The globalization of indifference is a very ugly disease. Very ugly.”

Biden: “Look, the values of diversity, equity and inclusion are the core strength of America. That’s why I’m proud to have the most diverse administration in history, to tap into the full talents of our country. I promised you, when I was president, I would have an administration that looked like America. We have more African-Americans, we have more women, we have more minorities in our administration than any other administration in all of history. That’s why we’re doing so damn well. Folks, I never imagined that in 2024 there’d be folks waiting to ban books in America. What in God’s name is that about? Not only that, they’re trying to erase black history, literally. They’re wrong, they don’t understand. Black history is American history! Not a joke.”

WELKER: “But let me look forward. Will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter what happens, senator?” Rubio: “No matter what happens? No. If it’s an unfair election, I think it’s going to be contested by either side.” WELKER: “No matter who wins. Senator, no matter who wins?” Rubio: “Well, I think you’re asking the wrong person. The Democrats are the ones that have opposed every Republican victory since 2000, every single one. Hillary Clinton — “ WELKER: “No Democrat has refused to concede. Hillary Clinton conceded. Senator, will you accept the election results?” Rubio: “Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen from her and that Trump was illegitimate.” WELKER: “But she conceded.” Rubio: “Kamala Harris agreed.” WELKER: “Senator, she — “ Rubio: “We have Democrats now — “ WELKER: “ — conceded the election. Senator, she conceded the election — “ Rubio: “But she said that Joe Biden — “ WELKER: “ — and attended the inauguration.” Rubio: “No. She said that Trump was illegitimate. She said that the election had been stolen. Kamala Harris agreed. By the way, there are Democrats serving in Congress today who, in 2004, voted not to certify the Ohio electors because they said those machines had been tampered with. And you have Democrats now saying they won’t certify 2024 because Trump is an insurrectionist and ineligible to hold office. So you need to ask them. I think you have to — have you ever asked the Democrats this question on the show?” WELKER: “Senator — “ Rubio: “I bet you you’ve never asked a Democrat that question.” WELKER: “Senator, you voted to certify the 2020 election, and here is what you said on that day that you voted to certify the 2020 election.” [Clip starts] Rubio: “Democracy is held together by people’s confidence in the election and their willingness to abide by its results.” [Clip ends] WELKER: “So, by your own definition, are Donald Trump’s claims undermining Americans’ confidence in democracy? Given that he has not conceded the last election, and he just said in recent days, twice, that he won Minnesota, senator.” Rubio: “I think what undermines people’s confidence in the election is when you have places like Wisconsin with over 500 illegal drop box locations, when you have places like Georgia where liberal groups were paying people $10 per vote.” WELKER: “Senator — “ Rubio: “No, but, listen, what undermines elections is when NBC News and every major news outlet in America in 2020 censored the Biden laptop story, which turned out to be true, not Russian misinformation, unprecedented. You couldn’t even talk about it on social media, they would de-platform you. People look at all this. They look at what happened in Arizona, 200,000 ballots that the signatures didn’t match. People lose confidence — “ WELKER: “Senator, hold on. Senator — “ Rubio: “ — and it opens the door to this. It does.” WELKER: “ — I have to jump in here. Senator. You voted to certify the election and — “ Rubio: “Because at that stage of the process, you have no options.” WELKER: “Senator, you voted to certify the election. Nothing has been censored on this program. Hillary Clinton — “ Rubio: “Did you guys cover the laptop for Joe Biden in 2020?” WELKER: “Absolutely we did. Absolutely covered the laptop. And Hillary Clinton did concede.” Rubio: “It was bad. You couldn’t even talk about it on social media.” WELKER: “But bottom line — Chris Krebs, the top election official — Rubio: “You couldn’t talk about it on social media. They de-platformed. You couldn’t even talk about it because you would be called — they said it was Russian disinformation. Voters, in many cases, didn’t even hear about it because it was blacked out by the media.” WELKER: “We did cover the election. And just a note that Chris Krebs — “ Rubio: “You covered the election, yeah.” WELKER: “ — who is a top Trump election official, called it the safest and most secure election in recent history.” Rubio: “This is not about safe or — “ WELKER: “Senator, we are out of time — “ Rubio: “Of course we are. But I’m telling you that if it’s unfair, we are going to do the same thing Democrats do. We’re going to use lawyers to go to court and point out the fact that states are not following their own election laws.” WELKER: “Okay, but the Democrats — “ Rubio: “Hopefully we’ll have a fair election and it will be unquestionable — “ WELKER: “All those cases — senator, all those cases were brought to court cases and lost, and there was no proof that there was any widespread fraud, as you know. But I appreciate — “ Rubio: “I never used the word ‘widespread fraud.’” WELKER: “All right. I’m sorry — Senator Rubio, thank you very much. I appreciate your time this morning. When we come back, Democratic Governor Wes Moore of Maryland joins me next.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: BRENNAN: “You said back in 2022 that a proposal to limit abortion access after 15 weeks of pregnancy was something you would support and some minimal national standard. What is the minimum national standard that you want the federal government to have on abortion?” Vance: “Well, look, margaret, I think that first of all we have to acknowledge that political reality is motivating a lot of these considerations. What Donald Trump has said, which is very consistent with what I said during my own campaign, is that the gross majority of abortion policy is going to be made at the state level. If you compare his view of saying, look, this is a tough issue. We need to let people debate and decide this tough issue in this new environment.” BRENNAN: “You want minimum federal standard.” Vance: “Margaret, compare this to the Biden Administration saying we want christians to perform abortions and.” BRENNAN: “That’s not true. It’s prohibited under the — So you don’t have a minimum national standard.” Vance: “Margaret, what I’ve said consistently is the gross majority of policy here is going to be set by the states. I am pro life. I want to save as many babe why is as possible. It’s totally reasonable to say late-term abortions should not happen with reasonable exceptions but I think Trump’s approach here is trying to settle a very tough issue and actually empower the American people to decide it for themselves.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: BUTKER: “I think only tough thing was for a lot of players. They felt like they didn’t have. A choice was almost like. You have to do these things. You gotta, follow these protocols or else you’re, not gonna, have a job and you’re going to get cod, but for me. I just it in my situation, I talked to my wife, and I was I was fully. Okay was stepping away from football, was like I’m gonna, stick to my principles, while I’m not going to compromise, and if this is my last season than then so be it, and I think I think in some ways I was an example for a lot of the guys like wow, you know. Maybe I should have stood up a little bit more, maybe in the future, when there’s something that’s gonna come down where I feel like my freedom skin taken away, I feel like I don’t have a voice. Well, I can stick up in and stand up for what I believe in cause at the end of the Dave football. Is it my life? It’s my job that I love it. I love kicking. I love the chief, I love playing, but you know I’m a child of god and I’m a husband father in that comes before playing football. So if I’m ever doing something that, I think goes against those first, two things as being a child of god has been a husband and father. Then I’m prepared to step away and and look fur fur another mean instead to provide for the family, so I think a lot of the younger guys, especially who may be identified as football as my life, that is, who I am, they were the one said, maybe had to compromise on their beliefs just so they continue doing what they’re love and it’s a tough thing. I don’t know what I would have done if I was in their position as a as a young, ricky but being more established, and then a I thought I was comment seen with NFL was about I’ve been blessed to play five seasons, and I know that I’m more than just football player and that really helped me cut to stay strong during this whole thing.” UNKNOWN: “So you were ready to leave football if it. If it came down to a you said, this is basic. The hill that that I’m going to die on was at something you express to higher ups ads in the Kansas city chiefs, something you talked about. Your team answers at something you kind of just kept in with your family like if it gets to this point. This is this is what I’m gonna stay strong on. This is where I’m gonna hold the line” BUTKER: “For the most part I kept to with my family, but I think everyone kind of understood that, because you know there are a lotta things that I had to do.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: CAPEHART: “Let’s talk about your slate piece on originalism because it’s part of a larger series on how the legal theory is basically holding our country hostage. You write quote, no system of law that relies on stability, predictability and consistency can function when history means merely whatever five amateur historians decided means at any given moment. How have the conservative justices has used originalism to twist the Constitution so far?” Lithwick: “There’s two parts. One is we don’t quite know what originalism means anymore when it was kind of invented or really flapped as a great legal idea in the 1980s. It meant original public meaning, it meant original intent of what the framers wanted the Constitution to say. That became too tricky because multiple framers wanted different things then it becomes original public meaning, the understanders of the Constitution believed. Now we are in this weird weird sort of text and history moment where we are trying to decide and that’s why they keep pulling out dusty dictionaries. We are going to find a book around until we find a dictionary definition we like. It’s not even a sort of stable test, but I think to your main question the problem that we are having with originalism is it’s a little bit like that back to the future car where it depends where you send yourself back in history. This week alone when the Supreme Court thankfully upheld the CFPB in the way it was funded we had an originalist decision by Justice Thomas saying the CFPB is funded constitutionally, we had an originalist by Elena Kagan saying this is what recent history would demand and we had an originalist to send by justices Alito’s engorge. It depends on when you spin the history wheel and where you get back to. In addition to rejecting everything that has happened since the framing, it also means you just pick your own historical moment and that is the outcome that you get. That’s not how we do constitutional law. It is deeply destabilizing.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: CAPEHART: “Your reaction to this story and Justice Alito’s response.” RASKIN: “Justice Alito’s response makes it clear he understands that it was a political symbol to turn the American flag upside down. It’s a universal symbol of political distress and in this case of specific opposition to the inauguration of Joe Biden. It’s what the MAGA right was calling for. If it were not a very clear political symbol whose meaning was well understood Justice Alito would not have gone through great pains to blame everything on his wife. The U.S. Supreme Court is the only court in the federal judiciary and the land that does not have a binding ethics code where you can actually go and complain to some tribunal about what’s happening. What we need is to have at the very least an ethics panel of federal circuit judges from around the country who we can bring complaints to of bias in the very likely event that Justice Alito does not decide to heed the calls to recuse himself from this case. It’s a very clear conflict of interest.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: Trump: “Television and the news reports. Even though fake news CNN and you know fake is going to be one of the people. They said to me the other day sir, CNN hate is a fake looksee how he does. I think is under a lot of pressure to be fair. But he’s going to be heading up a team that interrogates you. I said that is okay. I accept the debate. I accept it. You know why? No one thought is going to debate. They didn’t think I would accept it. I accept. Another one called, the put out another when I said I except they do not even tell me where it was, it was I didn’t care. What difference is that make? Would it said they were shocked out my fears were not going to do CNN were not going to have tapper be the guy. We are not going up to have othe people involved in that show. There is no negotiations. I accept anything you want. I don’t what to do. We go back and finish.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: Sharpton: “This week your governor Greg Abbott pardoned Daniel Perry, a former army sergeant convicted of murdering a Black Lives Matter protester in 2020. The victim, 28-year-old garrett foster, was legally carrying a rifle at the time of the incident, but according to witnesses never raised his weapon. Perry claimed he was acting in self-defense. Although unsealed evidence from the trial shows he made racist and threatening posts about protesters prior to the shooting, so what’s your reaction to this pardon, especially coming at at time when we are once again seeing many Americans engage in demonstrations and protests which we all hope will remain peaceful for everyone involved, what’s your reaction to the pardon, congressman?” ALLRED: “Yeah, well you know, rev, you don’t have to guess what happened here. There was a grand jury that convened and that issued an indictment. Mr. Perry got a chance to make his case in front of a jury of his peer, and his peers found him guilty of murder. And as you said, that was without some of the information that the general public knows from some of these text messages in which he basically talked about seeking out violence and seeking out, you know, going to one of these protests in order to engage in violence. And so what you see now, I think, is when, you know, the governor steps in and abuses the pardon power like this, it makes all of us less safe. We are a nation of laws. Texas is a place of laws. But when you’re able to violate those laws with impunity if the governor or the person in power likes your politics or thinks it’s in their political interest, then the entire system starts to come apart. And so to me, this is something that I know it’s not who we are as Texans, but when I think folks when they see, this they’re seeing the extremism that has taken over our state. And that’s one of the things we have to rezekt on November 5th when we vote out Ted Cruz and give someone else a chance to bring us together as Texans and not do these stunts that make us look to the outside world like we’re something that we’re not.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: WITT: “Biden, who gives the commencement address at morehouse college in Atlanta tomorrow. Faculty voted to give him an honorary doctorate, though apparently that vote was evenly split if you want to include those who abstained from the vote. The president of the college says he will cease of the graduation if there are major disruptions. You, sir, are a morehouse college graduate. Who also serve on the board of trustees. What are your expectations for what President Biden was a tomorrow and the potential protest, how mighty those might be?” GLAUDE: “Disclosure, the White House reached out and consulted with me about the speech. I have an idea of some of the things that he will reach for. Is going to talk about the history of Morehouse college. He’s going to talk about the reality of the racial divide that defines the nation. And, I guess he has to speak to those young folk, speak to what is in front of them. Look, this is occurring against the backdrop of the most serious moral challenge this generation faces. Might intuition, my expedition is that there will be protests. Those protests will take the form and shape they will take. I hope they are not too disruptive but I think President Biden has to speak to this generation directly. He cannot speak past them. He cannot assume that they are not informed, Alex. He has to speak to the fact that these young folk across the country are clamoring, are—“

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: BLITZER: “Let me get that. Alice Stewart’s thoughts on this as well. Alice, the Fox poll shows Trump winning more than 20% of black voters, which would be a historic high if it actually translates to votes in November, is this something that Trump team thinks they can do absolutely.” STEWART: “Absolutely, and they‘re working very hard to try and win over black voters and appeal to them. But what we‘re seeing with President Biden in the last few days and it has he will continue to do is he is not just appealing for black support, he is pandering for black voters, and look, this is what Democrats do every time there‘s a major election year, they parachute into black communities and say, I‘m a Democrat, vote for me when the reality is, they are frustrated with the policies of this administration and he wants to go out there and talk about abortion and threats to democracy when the key issue on the top of mind for all voters are as eva said it, the economic conditions, inflation, people are concerned about the border and they are also worried about national security. And this is a factor and a problem that the Biden Administration is going to have. And look, Trump is going to capitalize on that. And Frank Luntz, who as a conservative pollster has done a lot of polling. He says, even black voters are looking at Trump as someone that they can relate to as a victim of what they see as an unjust justice system. So they see Trump picking up support based on what‘s happening to him with the legal system.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: Velshi: “This is interesting. It is an interesting point. Sorry, go ahead, Jen. RUBIN: “— of the problem is the Supreme Court bar. They should be making motions to recuse these people. Those people who have been on the wrong side of 6-3 decisions well these guys have sat on the court should be asking for a rehearing. Judges who did not abide by their oath who have plainly repudiated the Constitution decided these cases. So, the Supreme Court bar has to get into this. I will also make a point that the person who broke this story is a fabulous investigative Reporter. She is not the “court Reporter.” The problem is the court reporters to investigate and treat the court like a regular beat. They don’t do investigative work, they don’t press for answers, they do not treat them critically. They are so in all of their subject matter that they act like the press office of the court. Judy cantor, the press coverage of the court has to change. And, I think the bar that goes to the court has to begin to put pressure on them as well.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: BLITZER: “Norm, you were in the courtroom yesterday for the dramatic moment when Todd Blanche pressed Cohen on whether the phone call allegedly linking Trump to the hush money scheme was actually about a 14-year-old prank caller. What was your takeaway from that? And how will prosecutors try to clean it up on redirect?” EISEN: “Wolf, it was the single best moment of Todd Blanche‘s cross-examination which otherwise meandered and left a lot out of loose ends and it was a powerful, there‘s no doubt about it. It was a blow on the chin, on the other hand, there‘s a tremendous amount of corroborating and supporting evidence. And it takes more than one punch to devastate the very strong proof, which I believe the district attorney has adduced here. It didn‘t night knock Michael Cohen out either. He didn‘t recant his testimony. He was clearly shaken, but he stood by what he had said. So I thought it was an important moment, but not dispositive in the case, they will redirect by making clear that in context that this call was a brief one, that there was ample time for multiple subjects. You can get a lot into 96 seconds. We do that all the time. And finally that there are other direct calls with Trump, including two on the morning of October 26, clearly placed by Cohen directly to Trump that also substantiate Trump‘s involvement with a great deal of other evidence.”

MACCALLUM: “So, also with us, former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, who has also been a federal prosecutor. We’ll get his take. All right, I thought we were going to take a break, but you are on, Jim. So, what’s your reaction to that conversation with Bob Costello? And I’d love to know your thoughts on whether you think that the defense needs him or does it open them up to a cross-examination that that could be problematic in any way in your assessment?” TRUSTY: “Yeah, look, I had the fortune of meeting Bob just a couple of days ago and we talked at length, and I got to say I’ve gone from the camp of don’t put on any defense to putting on just Bob Costello. Look, I think he is a kind of a gruff, truth-telling 51-year attorney from New York. He’s going to have devastating information that contradicts Cohen, as well as opinion testimony, which is fair game about honesty of Michael Cohen. He’s going to say Cohen wouldn’t know the truth if it hit him between the eyes. And he also turned the lens a little bit towards the prosecuting office that he was trying to warn, don’t build a case on Michael Cohen, he’s completely untrustworthy. So I think those are things you have to put on in these circumstances. You never really know if you need it or not in terms of how Cohen was cross-examined. So you’ve got to put this stuff on and then go right to closing argument and say they’re trying to sell you, you know, a bill of goods at the lips of Michael Cohen, probably the least credible witness I’ve ever seen on a witness stand in 35 years.” MACCALLUM: “Well, it’s amazing. You know, I watch, you know, all the other coverage. And on one channel today, another legal expert was saying that they’ve built such a strong case that links all of this to Trump, that it’s clear that that’s what’s happened. But then you have Anderson Cooper who had a little bit of a different take. Let’s watch this real quick. We’ll get a quick thought from you on the other side.” TRUSTY: “Sure.” MACCALLUM: “Do we have it? Ah, okay.” [Clip starts] HONIG: “Having just witnessed that piece of cross-examination, do you have doubts that that conversation happened the way Michael Cohen testified on his direct examination, that it called Trump —“ COOPER: “I think it’s — absolutely, absolutely, I think it’s devastating, I mean, for Michael Cohen’s credibility. If I was a juror in this case watching that, I wouldn’t think this guy’s making this up.” [Clip ends] MACCALLUM: “So, Anderson Cooper says that. He was in the courtroom, as I was yesterday, that the guy looked like he was lying. Quick thought on that, Jim, if you can.” TRUSTY: “Yeah, I mean, look, I think hope springs eternal in some quarters that are very politicized in their view. But this is a joke of a case. They’ve never defined how it became a felony. They’ve never proven even the misdemeanor version at the hands of President Trump. And they’ve ended with a star witness who is the very definition of an embarrassment of riches of cross-examination. So, depending on how this jury was selected, big question mark.” MACCALLUM: “Well, that’s the big question mark.” TRUSTY: “We really can’t say this is beyond a reasonable doubt.” MACCALLUM: “Yeah. No, it’s all up to the jury. We can talk all we want. But there are other people who get to decide in the end based on everything that they’ve heard over the last several weeks. Jim Trusty, thank you very much. Always good to see you.” TRUSTY: “Sure. Good to see you.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: BAIER: “All right, Leslie, it’s a concern. He is going to these different places. He will give a commencement address at Morehouse College. It’s obviously on the radar.” Marshall: “No doubt. You don’t want to see any kind of a drop even though I do believe that the African-American community will rally around and vote for President Biden again. But, you know, there are feelings, Bret, and then there are facts. Lowest unemployment in the black community, 2.6 million more jobs created in the black community. Half of the poverty among black children cut in half, you’re talking about years that you have a historical high in the number of black-owned businesses that are opening and a historical high in the number of SBA-backed loans specifically to black small business owners and I could go on but I don’t want to take up all the time here. So I think it’s important for the president to get out there and to talk about all of these areas that the black community isn’t hearing about because what they are hearing about from Mr. West, who is running for president, and who is an African-American, is we need to be angry at Joe Biden because back in the day he put more black people in jail. That’s the message that they are hearing, not the information that I gave prior to that.”

BRZEZINSKI: “Also with us, we have former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin. How are you holding up covering this trial?” RUBIN: “It’s a lot.” BRZEZINSKI: “All day, every day. And MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos. Because we also have to talk about the criminal hush money trial with the former President Donald Trump which we’ll get to now. It potentially could wrap up next week, we will find out from the experts here. The prosecution star witness Michael Cohen is set to return to the stand on Monday after Trump’s legal team tried to hammer away at his credibility yesterday. Court is in recess today so the former president can attend his son Baron’s high school graduation this morning. Lead defense attorney Todd Blanche says Cohen’s questioning will likely wrap up on Monday. The prosecution has said it does not plan to call any additional witnesses, and the defense says it may not call any, either. That means closing arguments could begin as early as Tuesday, clearing the way for jury deliberations by the end of next week. Willie, so we’re looking now just at what happened yesterday.” GEIST: “Another day of cross-examination of Michael Cohen yesterday. He testified he spoke directly to former President Trump on the phone about the payments to Stormy Daniels. Cohen asserted he contacted Trump through Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, on October 24th, 2016, about the hush money payments. It’s about two weeks before Election Day. Defense attorney Todd Blanche pressed Cohen about phone records showing he texted Schiller that day in which Cohen asked how to handle a teenager who was prank calling him. Cohen responded saying he did not remember that message. Blanche said, ‘Do you recall texting Keith Schiller at 7:48 P.M.?, ‘Who can I speak to regarding harassing calls to myself and office? The dope forgot to block his call on one of them.’ You don’t recall that?’ Cohen responded, ‘It sounds right, yes.’ Blanche then noted a return text to Cohen where Schiller simply says, ‘Call me.’ Blanche then pointed out Cohen called Schiller immediately after for a conversation that lasted only about a minute and a half. Blanche accused Cohen of lying, suggesting he did not speak to Trump during that call about Stormy Daniels as he had testified. Cohen, however, insisted both topics were covered, despite the short length of the call. The defense also attempted to paint Cohen as having a vendetta against Trump. Here is a portion of his podcast that was played in court.” [Clip starts] COHEN: “I truly [bleep] hope this man ends up in prison. It won’t bring back the year that I lost, or the damage done to my family, but revenge is a dish best served cold. And you better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to me and my family.” [Clip ends] GEIST: “Okay, Lisa, so you were down at the courthouse again yesterday. We’ll talk about that podcast moment in just a second, but let’s go back to — because it was a little confusing, maybe, as you listened through it. What was Todd Blanche, what was the Trump defense team getting at with that text and phone call between Michael Cohen and the bodyguard, Keith Schiller?” RUBIN: “Let’s talk about there was a narrow implication and then a much broader one, Willie, that they were trying to draw. The first thing they were trying to say is that Cohen’s testimony about the phone call on October 24th between him and Keith Schiller, which he testified was really a call to Trump about the Stormy Daniels settlement, wasn’t true. They presented him with text messages and phone call records that hadn’t been part of his direct examination, and the insinuation was, ‘You manufactured this. When you said you talked to Keith Schiller in order to talk to Donald Trump about finalizing the Stormy Daniels settlement, that didn’t really happen, did it? You had a minute and 30-second long phone call with him and juxtaposed with these texts about the 14-year-old who was prank calling you at the time. It it’s pretty clear that you called Keith Schiller to complain about that, to get Secret Service and security involved in these harassing phone calls. It had nothing to do with Stormy Daniels.’ That may or may not be true. It is also true that two days later, on the 26th, there is indisputably calls between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, and I expect on redirect that we will hear a lot from the prosecution about that, that Michael Cohen certainly notified Donald Trump and spoke with him for some longer period of time as he was finalizing it. But the broader implication that Todd Blanche was trying to draw is, if you can’t trust Michael Cohen about this phone call, can you really trust any of his testimony about the conversations that he had with Donald Trump at the time? After all, this was nearly eight years ago. And isn’t it really the case that Michael Cohen’s recollection is not organic, but is rather the construction of multiple prep sessions upon prep sessions with prosecutors from the Manhattan D.A.’s office who have constructed a memory in Michael Cohen that didn’t organically exist about a conversation that never happened, and others as well.” SCARBOROUGH: “You know, Danny, I have expressed, at times, skepticism about this case even being brought. I will say, though, yesterday, when commentators were talking about how this was like some Perry Mason — I’m just like, no, it’s not. A juror is not going to go, ‘Oh, my god, eight years ago, a minute and a half conversation...’ — I mean, it seems to me the much bigger problem is the podcast where he says, ‘I want this guy to go down.’ I mean, the prosecution is going to be able to clean this up on redirect, aren’t they?” CEVALLOS: “I agree, but I think you are in the minority. The vibe I’ve been getting is that a lot of folks feel like this was that kind of Perry Mason moment. And to that I say, when it comes to cooperating witness types like Cohen — and Cohen, if we take a step back, isn’t even close to the worst kind of cooperating witness you normally have on the stand. These are hardened criminals normally. This is not Cohen. So the prosecution knows that he’s going to get dinged on things, especially because a lot of these allegations happened eight years ago. Juries will forgive memory lapses from that long ago.” SCARBOROUGH: “Of course.” CEVALLOS: “So, I wasn’t in the courtroom, but from what I could see I think this is something that one of two things will happen: either the prosecution will choose to clean it up on redirect, or, Joe, they may not even think it’s that big a deal. They may go for the better moment, which is to stand up and say, ‘We’re good, we have no further questions for this witness.’ I just didn’t think it was that damaging because the prosecution is going to concede, essentially, and they have throughout the case, Cohen is flaky, Cohen is a guy that isn’t the most reliable person, but he’s believable on these issues. You know, I’ve been guilty of this before myself in cases where you find a factual inconsistency and you really hammer it and you think it’s going to be that Perry Mason moment, but if you hammer it too much, it looks a little petty to the jury. So it’s hard to say what the jurors are thinking. It just didn’t strike me as something that was fatal to the prosecution. Everybody knew that Cohen was going to get hit with his inconsistencies on cross-examination, I don’t think it came as a surprise to the prosecution, and I really don’t think even the defense thinks that that they’ve completely dumped on the state’s case.” LEMIRE: “So, Chuck, if you were there, how would you have handled this moment with Cohen? What would be the plan? And once Cohen is done, we may be out of witnesses unless Donald Trump is called to the stand.” ROSENBERG: “So, first, preliminarily, I agree with Joe and Danny. Perry Mason moments happen on ‘Perry Mason,’ they don’t tend to happen in courtrooms. It would be extraordinarily rare. Second, I also agree with Danny that either the government cleans it up or ignores it. I mean, cross-examination of Mr. Cohen lasted, what, 17-and-a-half years, and at the end of that, this is what we’re left with, that there was a discrepancy about a phone call eight years ago? Great. He’s probably wrong, but was he intentionally wrong? If he was intentionally wrong, that’s a problem.”

BURNETT: “On this, you’ve got Todd Blanche, who has said that he is going to take us through today. And he did, and he’s going to start again on Monday, and then the prosecution is going to the chance for the redirect, which is going to be crucial because they got to take this moment and they got — they got to turn it from something that can be terrible to something that does not terrible, right? OK. But she said she will have under an hour of redirect. Is that enough time to do it?” GOODMAN: “It’s surprising to me. I think that the defense counsel made so much headway today to then only try to recover for an hour and rehabilitate Michael Cohen within an hour, seems incongruous with the task at hand. I do want to also say though there is a lot of other evidence in the case that the jury’s looking at and saying what happened, like what happened in 2016. A lot of it is corroborated by David Pecker. There’s the 2015 meeting with Michael Cohen. It is explicitly about trying to influence the outcome of the campaign. There are other pieces that are also explicit, including —“ BURNETT: “So can this get to the level it needs to without say this phone call?” GOODMAN: “That’s right, because we do have David Peckers saying that in November, December, Michael Cohen says to him, please tell Trump to reimburse me. That is not Michael Cohen hiding things from Trump. That is Trump being in the loop, informed about the scheme. So there’s other things there, but I think what happened today still is so devastating. They have to do something right now. If the case ended today and they were final statements, I think there will not be a conviction.”

HOSTIN: “Well, yeah.” Goldberg: “That’s right.” BEHAR: “This lifetime assignment has got to stop.” HOSTIN: “Can I just say —“ BEHAR: “And they need to fix the Electoral College also, because that’s un-American.” FARAH GRIFFIN: “They need a code of ethics.” HOSTIN: “It is un-American.” BEHAR: “People need to understand what’s going on. You will not have a country if Trump gets in.”

RASKIN: “I didn’t see the drinking, but the gentlelady from New Mexico Melanie Stansbury raised it. She said there are — there are members drinking in the room. And that’s something that is worth investigating, if there was in fact drinking taking place.”

Harris: “So, a lot of federal contracts go to small businesses, but what we know is often who gets the — who even has the information about how to apply for a federal contract is a matter of who you know, not necessarily the — the skill of your work, how well you do your work, certainly has nothing to do with anything other than often just a lack of information and access to those relationships. So, from day one, when the president I came in, we said we are going to increase, by 50 percent, federal contracts going to minority-owned businesses, and we are on track to get that done by the end of next year. (Applause) And I mention that to say that the work that we have been doing is about creating incentives for folks to apply, but also holding the federal government to account for measuring how we are doing this work and being intentional about it, and I think that’s so very important. And that’s where, look, who’s in the position of power matters. Because, one, if you don’t have any level of awareness or interest in these disparities, you’re not gonna get anything done on them. And then when you become aware, if you actually intend to get something done, you have to hold yourself and the system to account. And I will say, that is part of the method of our approach to a lot of this work. Our work includes, for example — like, let’s have metrics and let’s say, for example, we know the — the history of black home ownership, we know the history of — of bias and laws that prevented equal access to that opportunity. We have now proposed that, if you are the child of parents who — or you were raised in a family where folks who raised you were not homeowners, when you want to go buy a home, you will be entitled to a $25,000 grant toward down payment for a home. Again, acknowledging the realities of it all. If your parents owned a home and then you as their child say, ‘I want to go buy,’ then your parents will likely have the opportunity and ability to say, ‘Honey, you don’t have to go take out that big loan. I’m gonna take some equity out of my home to help you with that down payment.’ And that’s how intergenerational wealth works. But if you start with nothing, how are we going to give people those opportunities. And so it’s about acknowledgement, and then pushing through the actual policies that are not just about lip service, but actually making a difference.”

BERMAN: “Okay, Randy, thank you for waiting. Your turn now: Recoverable for the prosecution?” ZELIN: “No. Can I stop there or do you want me to keep going?” BERMAN: “You can elaborate. You have earned a right to elaborate.” ZELIN: “Thank you. Michael Cohen had one job to do, and that was to put Donald Trump in the room and to have Donald Trump part of the conversation concerning the making of false entries in the books and records of the Trump Organization in order to influence the election, false entries of the misdemeanor elevated to a felony because it‘s in furtherance of another crime, which is election interference, election fraud. Had one job to do and he couldn‘t do it on something so simple. Tell us about the conversation. And the worst part of it is on direct he sounded so convincing, he sounded so smooth, so good, it was such a good day for the prosecution, describes the conversation, and then completely shoots the pooch where it looks like that conversation absolutely, actually never happened. Done!” BERMAN: “I will say this, as someone who spends a lot of time with these transcripts as I as part of my side hustle here, that conversation right there was actually only one of several conversations that Michael Cohen testified to. It was the shortest one and it was the least perhaps important in telling the story about how, according to Michael Cohen, Donald Trump approved the payments to Stormy Daniels, knew about how they we‘re organized and whatnot. That call was an October 24. On October 26, Michael Cohen testified in great detail about a longer conversation he had with Trump, where he talked about actually setting up the bank account. So does that no longer matter, that testimony, Randy?” ZELIN: “‘’Falsus in uno,’ I think that‘s the fancy Latin phrase, which for the rest of us means, ‘If you lied about one thing, I don‘t have to believe another thing that you say,’ and that is exactly what the judge will instruct the jury. If you find anything that a witness said to be untrue, to be incredible, to be a lie, feel free to disregard the entirety of that witness’ testimony.” BERMAN: “Since you brought up Latin, there’s nowhere else to go. Randy Zelin, we do appreciate your time this morning.”