earlier, it was not inevitable. we know hate never goes away. it only hides. given a little oxygen, it comes out from under the rocks. we also know what stops hate. one thing. all of us. a late rabbi described anti-semitism as a virus that has survived and mutated over time. together, we cannot continue to let that happen. we have to remember our basic principal. we have an obligation to learn the lessons of history. don't surrender our future to the horrors of the past. we must give hate no safe harbor against anyone, anyone. the founding, jewish americans represented only 2% of the u.s. population.

freedom for everyone in our nation, from that experience, we know scapegoating and demonizing any minority is a threat to every minority and the very foundation of our democracy. moments like this, we have to put these principals that we are talking about into action. i understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world. in america, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech, to debate and disagree, to protest peacefully and make our voices heard. i understand that's america. but there's no place on any campus in america, any place in america, for anti-semitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind. [ applause ]

whether against jews or anyone else. violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. it's against the law. we are not a lawless country. we are a civil society. we uphold the rule of law. no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves. [ applause ] the jewish community, i want you to know, i see your fear, your hurt and your pain. let me reassure you, as your president, you are not alone. you belong. you always have and you always will. my commitment to the safety of the jewish people, the security of israel, and its right to exist as an independent jewish state is ironclad, even when we

disagree. [ applause ] the biden administration is working around the clock to free the remaining hostages. just as we have freed hostages already. and will not rest until we bring them all home. [ applause ] my administration, with our second gentleman's leadership, has launched our first national strategy to counter anti-semitism. that's the full force of the government to protect jewish communities. we know it's not the work of government alone or jews alone. that's why i'm calling on all americans to stand united against anti-semitism and hate in all its forms. my dear friend, the late eli

weizel said, one person of integrity can make a difference. we have to remember that now more than ever. here in emancipation hall of the u.s. capitol, among the statues of history, is a bronze bust rohl wallenberg. born in sweden. he was a businessman and a diplomat. while in hungary, during world war ii, he used diplomatic to cover and hide about 100,000 jews over a six-month period. among them was a 16-year-old jewish boy who escaped a nazi labor camp. after the war ended, that boy received a scholarship to study in america. he came to new york city penniless but determined to turn his pain into purpose along with

his wife, also a holocaust survivor. he became a foreign policy thinker. making his way to this capitol and established as a first-term senator. that was tom lontos. that senator was me. tom and his wife became dear friends to me and my family. tom would go on to become the only holocaust survivor elected to congress, became a leading voice on civil rights and human rights around the world. tom never met rohl who was taken prisoner by the soviets, never to be heard from again. but his bust is here in the capitol. he was given honorary u.s. citizenship, the second person ever after winston churchill. the holocaust museum in washington is located on a road

in his name. the story of the power of a single person to put aside our differences, to see our common humanity, to stand up to hate and its story of resilience from immense pain, persecution, to find hope, purpose and meaning in life. we try to live and share that with one another. that story endures. let me close with this. i know these days of remembrance fall on difficult times. we all do well to remember these days also fall during the month we celebrate jewish american heritage. a heritage that stretches from our earliest days to enrich every part of american life today. great american, great jewish american tom lontos used the

phrase, the veneer of civilization is paper thin. we are its guardians. he with can never rest. my fellow americans, we must -- we must be those guardians. we must never rest. we must rise against hate, meet across the divide, see our common humanity. god bless the victims and survivors. may the resilient hearts, courageous spirit and eternal flame of faith of the jewish people forever shine their light on america and around the world. pray god. thank you all. [ applause ] >> good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. you have been watching what the white house has called a major

speech on anti-semitism by president biden. the president drew parallels between the atrocities of the holocaust and october 7th, the attack by hamas on israel. notably, the president is delivering the speech after weeks of pro-palestinian protests sparked by the war in gaza on college campuses across america, inflaming tensions in the country. i'm joined by "washington post" national political correspondent ashley parker. we heard a speech that many argued should have been delivered sooner. there was debate in the white house as to whether there was a reason for him to deliver this and deliver it now. but the pressure of the protests and the confluence of that and the campaign seems to me made it imperative he speak out. >> that's right. i think that was part of it. i was struck by what you said, which this speech, again, against anti-semitism, underscores the president's deep

bond with israel that goes back to his time as a senator. there's a lot of people even in his own administration who would like to see him speak out on the humanitarian crisis in gaza. it's not just when he gave the speech and what he chose to address but also what he didn't address. i think part of that is also a message that he is not going to be cowed by some of these political pressures. >> of course, the timing comes -- we can talk about this later. it comes as there are very tenuous and tentative cease-fire talks underway. israel has gone into rafah, closed down the major aid delivery point and crossing and is going in against the advice of the u.s. at a time of great tension in the region. >> that's right. you are exactly right. i do think he in this speech, too, he is demonstrating a nuance that gets a little lost in the debate and in the protest, which is that you can come out against anti-semitism

and support israel's right to exist while still disagreeing and making clear you disagree with some of the current actions they and their president are taking. >> ashley, thank you. i know you will stay throughout the hour as we will talk about the other split screen moment now. it's a striking moment, because we go from president biden's major speech on anti-semitism back to the new york courtroom where the former president, donald trump, is face to face with stormy daniels. miss daniels is on the stand under subpoena from the prosecution and testifying about how she first met donald trump at a golf event in 2006 and what transpired between them. alleging under oath that they did have sex, something that he has continually denied. donald trump shaking his head earlier as judge merchan ruled he would allow stormy daniels to testify. the defense team quickly renewing its objection to details of alleged sexual acts between the former president and the adult film actress.

he has denied that they had sexual relations. when daniels took the stand, the former president looked at her, then looked down. for our special coverage on this, i'm joined by ashley parker, of course, and my colleague, chris jansing who is co-anchoring with us in new york. chris, you have there guests to talk about the legal aspects of all of this. >> yeah. there has been so much this morning. you and i are going to cover it the next couple of hours. joining me is duncan levin. with us this hour, vaughn hillyard, nyu law professor, andrew weissmann and former u.s. attorney and legal analyst, joyce vance. duncan, i will start here. while we were listening to the president, the testimony continued. there were some pretty detailed explanations by stormy daniels of what she says was a sexual

encounter with the former president of the united states. afterwards, this is what she said. she said in testimony that she was staring at the ceiling. i didn't know how i got there. she said -- she was asked, do you recall how it ended? she said, yes. she said she was on the edge of the bed. it was hard to get my shoes on because my hands were shaking so hard. she recalls donald trump's worlds, it was great, let's get together again, honey bunch. i just wanted to leave. it can be very cringy to listen to some of this. i didn't read what some people would say certainly were the most salacious parts of the testimony. where is the line between relevant testimony and salaciousness? >> the reason the prosecution is getting a longer rope to deal with is that this is the story

that trump desperately did not want to come out right before the election. remember, taking you back to keith davidson's testimony, the lawyer who represented her in this deal with trump, he basically ran through the fact that there was this increased fervor around the election, after the "access hollywood" tape came out, that stormy and others were going to sell their stories. this was going to come out in their own words. dylan howard sent a text message that says her telling the story is the final nail in the coffin. they knew that this was going to come out. her own words here is exactly what the story is that donald trump did not want to come out right before the election. the fact that it's salacious hammers home, these are the details he didn't want coming out. they are allowed to show the

jury what it would have been like had this come out right before the election. the jurors can understand why it is he tried to cover it up. what was he covering up? today, we are finding out firsthand for the first time right out of her own mouth what it is that happened. the salacious stories are meant to hammer that home to the jury. >> there is now -- moving forward, all of that happened, after stormy daniels met donald trump for the first time and it was at a golf tournament. now moving ahead to january 17, 2007, did you meet trump at the launch of trump vodka in hollywood? he asked if i could go and i did so. so i could maintain the relationship. you may recall that she was hoping that at some point she could get a gig being on "apprentice" which was a popular television show at the time. she was greeted. he gave me a kiss. he shook hands. were there other people around? did he introduce you to anyone

memorable while you were there? yes, she says. his friend karen. did you know karen's last name? not at the time. do you know it now? yes. what is it? mcdougal. i want to bring in vaughn hillyard, if i can. vaughn, this brings me back to something in the very beginning of her testimony where she describes the first time she met donald trump. she was invited to dinner. she decided that she was going to go. there was another dinner she didn't want to be a part of. then she said, in what is a classic line perhaps for all time, that she thought, he is a business guy. what could possibly go wrong? well, it was the beginning of what led both her and him into the courtroom today. i will let you pick it up there, vaughn. >> reporter: this is the difficulty, chris, with donald trump potentially testifying. when he speaks to the press or at a campaign event and issues a

blanket denial of what stormy's allegations are, this is the difficult part, when we talk about the jury. they are hearing about a chronology of events that are very detailed. beginning with the lake tahoe golf celebrity charity event. then to the one-night stand that night. the next day stormy daniels outlines she went and met back up with donald trump at a hotel lobby where he introduced her to his big friend ben, who was the pittsburgh steelers quarterback, ben roethlisberger. then over the following week, stormy daniels testified, that he would call her from two to three times a week just to check in. they had conversations about the "apprentice." it could help her career. you get to january of 2007, at the trump vodka event. she's testifying she was introduced by donald trump to

karen mcdougal. then you go to a trump tower meeting, which this to longer is a point of just simply stormy daniels' testimony about her interactions with donald trump. rhona graff testified she was an executive assistance to donald trump. she testified that she thought that she saw stormy daniels at trump tower on the 27th floor. now you have stormy daniels herself saying that she was invited by donald trump to come meet with him to talk about a potential arrangement of being on the "celebrity apprentice." you look at how the prosecution is presenting the case, they laid down the foundation for stormy daniels and her story and the ramifications it could have had on the election. you also now have her simply confirming stories and meetings that others have already testified to. >> andrew weissmann, jump in here.

a lot of this is very detailed and salacious and very specific. what is the point of the prosecution in putting her on the stand? she's obviously a star witness, if not the star witness in this whole case. what is the legal significance? how does a jury react to something this explicit? >> that's a great question, because i think as joyce and i would tell you, it is really not necessary for the jury to find legally that there was a tryst or affair, whatever you want -- or sexual relationship or an encounter. that's not necessary to prove up this crime. in other words, there could have been a false allegation she was making. the real issue is whether there was an effort to have her not spread that. the same way that everyone agrees that the allegation with

respect to the doorman, that everyone agrees that was not a true story. on the other hand, with respect -- >> andrew, right now, what's going on in the court is, she's being asked about meeting donald trump again and what happened when they were in the bungalow. do you want to talk about that that? >> she's saying there was a sexual relationship. really, it's not necessary. it's all about the coverup, whether the story is true or not. if it's a true story, it would give donald trump even more motive to want to cover it up. it's not legally necessary, even though it's very embarrassing and salacious and it's something that the jury wants to know. i don't think at the end of the

day the jury will actually need to know whether it's true or not. duncan's point is correct, which is, this is -- she's in many ways an exhibit. this testimony is precisely, the state will argue -- it's this testimony that the campaign did not want anyone to know right after the "access hollywood" tape. to the extent we are talking about it and the details, that's precisely what they did not want to happen in october, right after the "access hollywood" tape. they played donald trump talking about how damaging this could be to his campaign. we have hope hicks saying that afterwards, donald trump said to her, thank god these allegations came up after the election, not before. in many ways, her story, what we are hearing is really sort of an exhibit to what it is that they did not want to have come out.

whether it's true or not is really irrelevant. it's simply the sensational nature of her allegations are precisely what they wanted to squash. that's the state's argument here. >> ashley parker, you covered donald trump extensively. she's going on to describe a 2007 meeting at trump tower where she was met by rhona. she was his close assistant. she seemed to have had a promise from him to be on the "apprentice." she was asked whether she had disclosd to her boyfriend about the sex with donald trump. she never told him about that. he waited in the car. for a later meeting in the bungalow. there were several meetings, several things she's recounting. >> yeah, that's right.

she's recounting it with a lot of specific detail. again, as andrew was saying, there's nothing illegal about having an affair. even politically at this point -- 2016 might have been different. at this point, another woman, another set of allegations, adding to more than a dozen or two dozen is not really going to change voters' minds. it is important, if they can establish that this was something that the former president thought would be politically damaging if it came out then. then, of course -- again, this would not necessarily be the problem. but one thing that's fascinating -- hope hicks testified to this when she spoke, which i also often heard in my reporting is that former president trump deeply cared what melania thought of him, what melania would find out, what might embarrass her. it's worth noting, a lot of the

testimony, a lot of the witnesses, it has to be very uncomfortable for the formers re -- the former president to know his wife is hearing the trysts stormy daniels is alleging to have taken place. >> also his family. his daughter, his younger son. >> all of them. >> both daughters. >> it's terribly embarrassing. andrew, if you could explain the prosecution's strategy of having susan question daniels. >> yeah. i'm not surprised. i would also think that we may see susan do something on the defense side. she's the one lawyer there who is an experienced defense lawyer.

the other two gentlemen are experienced former prosecutors, but very little defense experience. that's typical in a story like this with a witness like this that you might want to have a woman do the direct and a woman do the cross-examination. i'm not saying that's -- i'm not trying to endorse that or not endorse it. i'm just saying that's a common strategy for something of this nature to have a woman do the direct of this woman and the same for the cross. maybe for social expectations or what juries expect. i think we will see the susans both taking, i think, an active role in connection with this particular witness. >> andrew, let me take you back to the document. they are talking about this second time that she met him. this is at the vodka event. i'm reading here. she's asked how long she stayed. a couple of hours, two hours

tops. what did he say? he wanted to get together again. i miss you, he said. this is not a direct quote, but the general idea of what she testified to. then she basically says to use 2024 parlance, she ghosted him. he called her multiple times. she realized she wasn't going to get on "apprentice." she didn't want to have anything else to do with him. when she talks about this and she says this that he was still pursuing her, earlier in her testimony she talks about the fact that she asked him about his wife. they had only been married a year. he said, you know, basically not to worry about it, because they didn't even sleep in the same room. he compared her in some way to ivanka. she reminded him of his daughter. the whole idea that when she

went to what she thought was a dinner, i came out in silk or satin pajamas. i say that because i'm wondering how much of this is in a way a reverse character witness, that what she's really communicating to jurors is, maybe that this isn't such a good guy, maybe not somebody to be trusted. >> you know, i think all of that is true. i think that you are going to see the prosecution be very careful and delicate about how they use this in summation and try to play it by the book to say, look, we needed to introduce this, but he is not on trial because of whether you like him or dislike him. all of the -- you can be -- i think they will try to distance themselves from that. as they should. there's a reason that this is

put on that is divorced from the way we may be looking at it in terms of the political lens, small p political lens of how it plays in terms of what it says about the former president and the nature of these allegations. in terms of the case, there's a very strict way in which there's relevance to this. i should point out her story and what she's saying does have all the corroborative details. as vaughn was saying, rhona graff believes she saw her. she does have the bodyguard's information in her own telephone. that was introduced. we saw records that the former president had stormy daniels' information in his contacts that was put there by rhona graff. she's talking about specific

people who were there at the time. that's usually not the kind of thing you would say if you thought it could be disproved, that those people would hop on the stand and say that's not true. there's a lot of corroboration around the edges of her story and the fact that they knew each other, including, of course, the very famous picture of the two of them. there will be substantial reason to think -- the jury is entitled to just consider her credibility. you can be sure on cross-examination, that her credibility will be attacks in terms of her motive, trying to make money off the story and various other things about her will be tested. as is the defense right and as they should be doing. >> how tough would you be on her if you were doing the cross? from what we are hearing in the courtroom, the jurors are not

reacting. whatever they are thinking, whatever they are feeling, they seem to be holding it close to the vest. >> that's appropriate. i've been on jury and we all try to be very, very dispassionate. you are told to not really think -- not think about how you want to deliberate at the end until the end. wait for all the evidence before you start doing that. i think i could see the cross being fairly tough, because the defense position is she's lying. if you think that she is lying in order to make money or for whatever reason, you could imagine her being tough. that's where you may decide that a woman would be better to do that kind of cross examination with respect to a woman so it doesn't look like bullying and people's sexual stereotypes get played differently by how the cross works. >> can i go back for a second? you made the point about all the

corroborating evidence. she's told a pretty consistent version of the story for more than a dozen years now. do you think that this is the defense not believing her story or the defense being instructed by the client to try to disprove her story? ultimately, whether they had sex or not, as has been pointed out, doesn't matter. >> i think this is one where -- i think there's a confluence where i think that i could see the defense strategy and donald trump's own political and personal views actually aligning. we have talked about it, there are sometimes what he might want to do politically would not be useful in court. i think here, i think that there is an overlap. i think the defense strategy legitimately could be to do a

hard cross-examination and to really try and cast doubt on why she's doing this. to point out that, this was -- even under her story, it's just a one-night stand and she's trying to make money and publicity over. that's the kind of thing jurors could react to and in some ways not think favorably of the defendant or of her. at the end of the day, when i have been summing up -- whether i'm a prosecutor or defense lawyer, i'm telling the jury, whether you like the witnesses personally is not the issue. it's really about credibility and assessing the whole story and all of the evidence. it's not about who you want to have dinner with. sometimes i think that we sort of overanalyze how likeable a witness is. some of the best witnesses i have seen are not likeable at all but are very, very credible. >> vaughn hillyard, you have covered donald trump for so

long. here we have stormy daniels telling her story publically. there's also, for the defense, for the cross-examination, to get into the whole -- all of the episodes with michael avenatti. there's a lot that happened with her during the campaign and afterward. >> reporter: right. this has been, i think to -- anybody could make the statement it's a tumultuous 18 years around her allegations against donald trump. michael avenatti should not be removed from being a reason for that. he was found guilty in federal court and sentenced to four years in federal prison for stealing more than $300,000 from her as part of her book advance that she released in 2018. michael avenatti was a trusted lawyers of hers who was there, sat down for the "60 minutes"

interview in 2018, was by her side before stormy daniels found out that he had stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from her. for her, much of her own story she told through her book in 2018. she also told in the documentary on peacock here that was just released about two months ago. for stormy daniels, she's written so much of her own story. i think that that's where the testimony actually -- playing out as we speak inside the courtroom -- is compelling potentially for this jury. of course, for the prosecution. she's sharing that back in 2011, "in touch" magazine, which she called the fluff outlet, reached out that they were planning to publish a story related to her and her encounter with donald trump. she did not want her story out there, she said. when the magazine, according to stormy daniels, said they were going to run with it anyway, she cooperated and shared a few details but not graphic details. ultimately, she was surprised

that "in touch" magazine ended up not running with the story. a couple months later she was in a parking lot, she's telling the jury and prosecution, she was in a parking lot in las vegas with her daughter when a man approached her and in her words threatened her and said to not ever share her story about her encounter with donald trump again. she said that it startled her so much she didn't even share it with her boyfriend at the time. that's when then later on in 2011 a gossip site call thedirty.com reached out to her manager. she reached out to stormy daniels and said this gossip site was going to publish something related to her encounter. stormy daniels is telling this jury right now that this scared her. she did not want the details of her encounter out there, particularly because of the man who she says threatened her at the las vegas parking lot that very same year and warned her not to have her story about donald trump get out there. this is part of the prosecution,

allowing stormy daniels to share her story stemming from 2006 when she had that first sexual encounter with him, to the point all these years later about attempts to control her story and the narrative and the extent to which the public would become aware of the details and graphic details about her relationship with donald trump. >> joyce, we are learning as i'm looking at the document, there was a point where that changes. she's asked very bluntly whether she wishes this ever happened. she says she would not do it again in part because of the threat she said that she and her family face. now they are fast forwarding to where donald trump is planning to run for president. she was approached by someone suggesting that maybe she could consider again selling her story. did you have a conversation with a friend who was an attorney? she said she did. did you decide based on that

conversation? he thought it was a good idea. do you remember the "al qaeda -- "access hollywood" tape coming out? yes. was she trying to sell the story before and was she successful in ding so before the tape came out? the answer is no. even if the jurors believe then, joyce, the reason she was doing this all along, from the very beginning, the first attempt until after the "access hollywood" tape came out, even if she was doing it to make money, even ifthey see her as someone trying to gain financially and publically, does that necessarily negate what's at the heart of this case? >> it doesn't. prosecutors will argue in closing, they will tell the jury that the prosecution didn't get to pick any of the witnesses against donald trump. donald trump chose all of the

witnesses, including stormy daniels. that's typically a powerful argument that lands with jurors. by the same token, the trump team's strategy here, they don't have to convince 12 jurors like the prosecution does. they only need one juror who will be strong enough to hold out and refuse to vote to convict. in their opening statement -- this goes back to what andrew was discussing -- an opening statement, the defense all but called stormy daniels a liar. said the story wasn't true. whether or not it's true isn't essential to the prosecution's case. but the defense now has a lot of their credibility tied up in disproving the stormy daniels story. when they get to cross-examination, we can expect that they will push her pretty vigorously, that they will try to catch her in inconsistencies. the real risk for the defense in all of this testimony is what

they might inadvertently elicit during cross-examination. they will be very careful not to give her an opening. but she's come off as someone who is smart, someone who can deliver a line, as she did early on whether she said, what could go wrong, and so the risk for the defense comes in how she answers their cross-examination. >> we are continuing on with this. clearly, it became a situation, as she recounts in the witness stand, joyce, that after the "access hollywood" tape came out, a lot of people were interested in her story. she said, in october of 2016, was your focus on selling your story? she said, yeah. did you have intention of approaching either mr. trump or michael cohen, his attorney, to have them pay for your story? no. my motivation wasn't money. i just wanted to get the story out. did there come a time when you learned donald trump and michael cohen were interested in buying the rights to your account?

yes. did you understand they would pay so that your story would not be made public? they were interested in paying for the story, yes, it would be the best thing that would happen so my husband wouldn't find out. we are now getting to the part of the story, potentially, that gets us to the heart of the legal matter. right? >> yeah, that's absolutely right. the important thing for the prosecution here is eliciting testimony that this all got amped up with the release of the "access hollywood" tape. that's a big part of the theory of the case, that trump was doing this, it was about the election, it wasn't about protecting his wife. stormy daniels is advancing that narrative by talking about her concern here and the time line that all of this was happening on. >> ashley parker, we are talking about 2016, we are talking about the "access hollywood" tape.

this has been covered in previous testimony. now when we see what her motivation was, and she didn't want it to become public, she's testify, because she didn't want her husband to find out about this. she's testifying to at least the fact that she did not want to become part of the story, especially after "access hollywood" and the other women came forward. remember the 2016 campaign, we were all completely -- the republican party was completely traumatized at the time by that. paul ryan and others were talking about, should there be a change on the ticket. >> that was a hugely important moment in the campaign. that's one of the things they had hope hicks speak to, or they were hoping she could speak to is the idea that especially after the "access hollywood" moment, which was at the very end of the campaign, in october, that there was a real sense in trump world -- i remember, because i covered this at the

time. i'm sure vaughn does, too. that they were going to lose female voters. this could hurt them with female voters. they were desperate for no further disclosures of allegations of alleged sexual misconduct or even consensual affairs, because this was a pivotal group of voters that they believed they needed to hold, which would get to potentially the idea of why the former president and his team would want this to be covered up. >> let me go to you, duncan. there are direct quotes from stormy daniels. they settle on a number. it's $130,000. she's asked, how did you feel about $130,000 at the time? she says, i didn't care about the amounts. it was just get it done. the money didn't matter to me, i didn't pick a number. why didn't you ask for more money, which is interesting that he asked that question. a lot of people out in public often ask me, $130,000 doesn't

seem like a lot given what ashley just talked about, where they were in the campaign and how valuable it might be to keep this quiet. she said again, because i didn't care about the money. why is that important? >> the d.a.'s office is trying two cases in the same case. this is a falsifying business records case. i come back to it because we spent the first chunk of the trial in conspiracy land. what was he trying to cover up by falsifying the business records? he is trying to cover up this conspiracy to commit election fraud, to violate the campaign finance laws. >> let me read what was just said in court. who did you understand was the beneficiary of the nda, the non-disclosure agreement? it was a contract between parties or people to keep the information she had secret. who did you understand was the beneficiary of that nda? donald trump. who was representing him at the time? michael cohen.

underscoring this is the fact that $130,000 is more than is allowed to be given as a campaign contribution under the federal election campaign act. that's what this is about. did this hush money payment get covered up by falsified business records and is this a crime? did it cover up the intent to commit a crime, give stormy daniels this money so it wouldn't affect the election? they have done a good job in the first chunk of the trial establishing that this was about the election. it wasn't about covering up an affairmelania. pecker's testimony and keith davidson showed this frenzy after the "access hollywood" tape came up to cover up the story. it's clearly about the election. the question is, was this a campaign contribution? it doesn't really matter what the number is. we saw a smoking gun document by the corporate controller where we saw the numbers were grossed

up for taxes. they weren't really given as an expenditure for a lawyer. they were doubled for taxes, which means they were falsified. the falsification is plain on its face. they have established all of this already. they are getting to extra witnesses who are, i think -- they are credible, but they have baggage. she's clearly somebody who has a lot of baggage. i don't think it matters whether it was $130,000 or $330,000. the point the prosecutors are trying to drive home is that this was a campaign contribution that was covered up with a falsified business record. >> one of the last things she said -- we are keeping up to this date on the testimony. we had to pretend that we didn't know each other at all basically. back to you, andrea. >> joyce vance, i was going to ask you about that. this is the non-disclosure agreement. she's asked, as we have pointed out, that michael cohen was the

attorney, the beneficiary was donald trump, the payment is here. in exchange for the $130,000 that i could not tell my story, that he couldn't tell the story, no contact, quote, we had to pretend that we didn't know each other basically. that and the side letter to all the confidential agreement, which also identifies the fake names that were used. the fake names were peggy peterson and david denison. this shows that it was all supposed to be kept secret for the election, is the point. of course, of the prosecution. >> it's some sharp contrast to stormy daniels' earlier testimony. trump never told her to keep things secret, never told her it had to be confidential. introduced her to people at events. invited her to public events and into his office. it is only as the election draws close and after the "access

hollywood" tape is released, this concern about secrecy develops. her testimony is important. of course, one of the challenges the prosecution faces here is tieing donald trump to the false records. here is stormy daniels testifying, this was an agreement between me and donald trump. it is still a little rocky for the prosecution, because donald trump's signature isn't on the document. she can continue to corroborate the testimony we all know is coming from michael cohen, that he was, in fact, acting as trump's lawyer. that will be brought out by the fact that these payments are made to michael cohen by donald trump, who is very scrupulous about letting money walk out the door. signed off on this check and attached invoices where cohen's payments were plussed up beyond the actual $130,000 that went to stormy daniels. this is what prosecution in trying a criminal case is all

about. it's always a little bit messy watching the sausage get made. here you have different witnesses bringing in key pieces of testimony that the prosecution will put together for the jury in closing argument. stormy daniels adds a lot to that. here she testifies about this agreement between two parties with fake names and this sort of era of confidentiality that begins just as the election approaches. she adds a lot to what the prosecution is asking the jury to understand. >> let me drill down on that. when you say up until the election she wasn't a secret. she testified today she came to trump tower. she met rhona there. she was brought upstairs. they had a meeting. they were very public, more public than one might have assumed. it was only with the election that the confidentiality became

so important. that the prosecution is driving home with her signing -- showing her the settlement agreement, the extra letter there that had the names that i just mentioned, david denison and peggy peterson, and that she signed it. >> right. this is a document that the jury will have back with them. they can look at the evidence. they can think about what it means. when you are the prosecution trying to build a case that will meet this burden the prosecution bears of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you will remind the jury, it doesn't mean proof beyond some sort of a speculation. it means proof beyond an actual reasonable doubt. as the jury continues to see documents like the exhibits yesterday, 35 and 36, michael cohen's invoicing with notes from mcconney and from

weisselberg, confirming the amounts of the payments and their nature, and now you see the settlement document with stormy daniels that's dated, you know, very close to the election in time in a way that advanced the time line, all of this evidence comes together to become proof beyond a reasonable doubt. there are simply no reasonable doubts left when it's all viewed together or at least that's the prosecution's hope by the time they get to closing argument. >> we have gone into a lunch break. they go to lunch for about an hour. vaughn hillyard, i want to go back to you. they were just talking about is this -- brings about this contrast. january 17, 2007, this is the second time that stormy daniels has met donald trump. she's asked very specifically whether or not he wanted to keep this a secret. she said, no. one of the things that was brought up -- there were a lot of people who wanted to be on

the "apprentice." there were people who may have shown up at trump tower or any of the events that he was at. that's 2007. you fast forward to him running for president. then we are back at the point where it's clear, with an nda, basically we want to never know each other, they have gone into a different realm. >> reporter: exactly. look, we are talking about an 18-year period of time between 2006 and now. of course, even 2006 to 2015, things happen in people's lives. people's motives change. donald trump was somebody who was known around new york as calling up the new york new yor post" to plant stories about his womanizing around town. and then you have him clearly based off stormy daniels' testimony suggesting he didn't care whether it got out there that they had had a sexual

encounter, that he was openly out in public with her inviting her to events in 2011 where karen mcdougal who allegedly had a ten-month sexual relation also was there and introduced them to one another and at the time in 2011, stormy daniels testified here to the jury that she didn't want her story to get out there. she didn't want "in touch" magazine to publish her story and fought to have it removed. donald trump's reasons, he was running for the presidency of the united states, a la august 15th meeting at trump tower but stormy daniels testified that she was suddenly now willing to really share her story. her daughter was older and wanted to have control of the story and how it got out there and ultimately after the "access hollywood" tape was released she said there was increased

interest through her manager to have her story bought and purchased so motivating factors are always complicating and now what stormy daniels is openly acknowledging to the jury that included for herself as well, but then also through her firsthand account suggesting that it was a changing motive for donald trump as well, and that is what this jury who was just introduced to stormy daniels personally on the stand for several hours today heard from a firsthand account and on the other hand, you have donald trump who may not take the stand at all and may not refute inside of this courtroom the testimony that they heard directly given over the course of several hour. >> we are on a lunch break for another hour and eight minutes but, duncan, as you look at the entire morning, much was salacious. much of it was very detailed. the jury according to people who were in the room has been at times riveted to stormy daniels' testimony but, again, from a legal perspective what's the most important thing we've heard

so far from her? >> this is the story, the bombshell story that trump was desperately trying to avoid spilling out into public right after that "access hollywood" tape came out. we are hearing it today out of her lips for the first time and it is not -- the irony is probably not lost on him running for president on the precipice of another election. the republican nominee for president and the parallel between that story coming out right before 2016 and this story coming out of her lips right before the next election can't be lost on him. >> and ashley parker, as we've been watching this, they're taking this lunch break, i'm reading a blog from laura jarrett, our legal correspondent and she's saying the prosecution here has tried to prebutt several issues that the defense is going to bring up on cross-examination, for instance, was she motivated by money, and reading part of her testimony here she was asked by susan

hoffinger, the prosecutor, who is questioning her, how did you feel about $130,000 at the time, the amount of the settlement, the payment in the nda. she said i didn't care about the amount. she testified, i just wanted to get it done. daniels said the money didn't matter to me. i didn't pick a number. huffinger said why didn't you ask for more. because i didn't care about the money, so she's basically saying that the money didn't matter, also as laura points out, she didn't report the threatening man in the parking lot at the time, and when asked about that, she said she didn't report it because she was scared and she didn't want it to go to the police, so that's clearly something that the prosecution expects the defense will bring up on cross. >> right, when you talk about the prosecution trying to sort of prebutt some of these problems and certainly they have a little bit of a challenging task left with stormy daniels than, frankly, with michael

cohen who is a very unlikable witness, one of the through lines of the trial has been just about no one in trump's orbit likes michael cohen, no one who dealt with him. he is not particularly reliable, so that's something they tried to prebutt with him, again, with stormy daniels, there's just the general background of an adult film star in the eyes of the public or jurors perhaps and this may not be fair but being the most reliable witness so you're right, the prosecution is trying to get ahead of some of what the defense will show and, again, this is probably -- i'll leave it to the lawyers to weigh in further, even if stormy daniels had been doing this for the money and, again, she made clear she wasn't at all doing it for the money but even if it had been for the money, it still comes down to if donald trump was trying to buy her silence, because he was worried that whatever her motivations this becoming public would hurt him electorally. >> of course, that is now more relevant than ever in the 2024

campaign. >> exactly. >> the court is in a lunch break. we'll take a short break as well, stay with chris jansing and me for our continuing coverage of the criminal trial of former president trump. and the testimony of stormy daniels coming back. you're watching msnbc. (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. it's never a good time for migraine, especially when i'm on camera. that's why my go-to is nurtec odt. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults.

it's the only migraine medication that helps treat & prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. people depend on me. without a migraine, i can be there for them. talk to your doctor about nurtec odt today. with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley you know, i spend a lot of time thinking about dirt. at three in the morning. any time of the day. what people don't know is that not all dirt is the same. you need dirt with the right kind of nutrients. look at this new organic soil from miracle-gro. everybody should have it. it worked great for us. this is as good as gold in any garden. if people only knew that it really is about the dirt. you're a dirt nerd. huge dirt nerd.

i'm proud of it! [ryan laughs] we see you. athletes. investment bankers. doctors. business leaders. we see your ambition. your desire to succeed. which is why we are investing in your future. ...empowering the next generation to reach the c-suite and elevating women's golf. because you may not always see yourself in the world, but we see you. wanna know a secret? more than just my armpits stink. facts. that's why i use secret whole body deodorant for clinically proven odor protection everywhere. so i smell great all day, all hike, and all night. secret whole body deodorant.

a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today!