stormy daniels on the stand going over the back and forth between trump's lawyers and stormy daniels trying to discern whether or not she wanted to get paid or whether or not she wanted to talk about it or have a press conference or keep her mouth shut. this is a bit of a ping-pong ball right now going back and forth. doesn't land a lot of things at the moment. it's early. >> dana: it is early but we're moving right along. jonathan turley, andy mccarthy, kerri urbahn and former counsel to the senate judiciary committee brett tolman. jonathan turley, we understand the cross examination is underway and stormy daniels might seem a little defensive. >> she has every reason to be defensive because much of what she has said in the past has been contradicted. and they are bringing out the settlement agreement that she

reached with them. daniels was doing what many people view as a conventional form of celebrity extortion. she wanted to cash in on her story. but what's interesting is that donald trump was trying to kill false stories as well as stories that were allegedly true. there was a story involving a door man who said he had an illegitimate child. she wanted to kill that, too. that's not strange for celebrities or politicians. indeed, many members of congress have engaged in ndas throughout the years. so this is a standard part of politics and entertainment. now, what they are showing the jury now is that she had this economic motive all along. but also her credibility is in tatters. the real question here is going to be how more sort of narrow the scope of the testimony will be. it is obviously going to be

narrower. it is a cross examination when it comes to trump. they have a lot of material involving her own conduct, her own life. and you may see the prosecutors start to object as to the scope of those questions. >> bill: andy, do you think at the moment that stormy daniels is done after today? or do you have any sense of that right now? >> without being in the courtroom and listening to the strain of testimony, that's a hard call to make. nothing moves as fast except for jury selection as we thought it would be. but just piggybacking on what jonathan said, i have been thinking a lot, what i think you would be thinking about as a lawyer in this case is your strategy with respect to whether trump is going to testify or not. one of the reasons i thought that they should come in with guns blazing today to marshall a

good mistrial motion, especially after they had a day off to pull it together, is i think one of the outrageous things about allowing this testimony is it really makes it very difficult for trump to testify in this case. because now by virtue of the way the prosecution has gone about this, stormy's story about what happened in 2006, which shouldn't be in the case at all, is front and center in the case. and trump, who shouldn't have to testify about that, will obviously have to testify about it if he takes the stand because it wouldn't make any sense to the jury if he didn't. i think that's one of the worst things about letting her testify this way. but as far as trial strategy is concerned, i think if i would want to put trump on the stand, i would want her off the stand as fast as i can and i want to make it as narrow as i can. if i decided i'm not putting trump on stand or decided not to

testify, then i think my lawyers have a lot of -- a lot more leeway to go after her. >> dana: two questions, kerri. one on stormy daniels. do we have any idea how the jury is reacting to her testimony? >> i started off the day on tuesday i was in the overflow room thinking it was a bad room for donald trump. the level of salacious details was providing would cloud anyone's judgment. but by the afternoon, her disposition and demeanor changed. she went from an accessible person hanging out with at a coffee shop hearing a little bit of an off color story about a past relationship to a very hostile, defiant witness who was

talking pretty proudly about defying a court order. she was all over the map as far as what she was in this for. just now we get notes from our producers in the courtroom talking about how her lawyer said to michael cohen that stormy daniels really, really wanted this money and again i go back to this silly idea that she wasn't in it for that. i say that as someone who was the former press secretary for the brett kavanaugh confirmation efforts. blasty gave it to the "washington post." anyone can do that. the idea that stormy daniels was out there because she felt she had more obligation to get it out post access hollywood story is ridiculous. she sold silence and enraged when she wasn't given it. >> on that point they are getting to the heart of the matter right now inside the courtroom because trump's attorney is asking daniels about

the $130,000. based on the emails we get from our reporters and producers in the courtroom there daniels said she didn't get $130,000. it was a payment. she got a portion of it. in return for the $130,000 payment she signed the nda. wow. we have reached -- we have finally reached the moment that this is likely all about. then there is a lot more detail here. i don't want to read all the way through it here and get comment from brett tolman. i will read this and summarize. where are you now in the trial? it has been sometime since we have had a chance to ask you. go for it. >> well, the most remarkable thing is there is not a courtroom, bill, in this country where a trial judge would have tolerated -- they have 0 patience for these kinds of salacious details when they really have no relevance to the underlying case that has to be proven. but here that's an exception, right? because they want to have that come out.

the judge is just as interested, you can see, and so a lot of leeway was given. what you are going to see now is the defense team is going to adapt a strategy that is very common on cross examination and that is the strategy to get the witness unsettled, get them defensive and then go in for the kill on some of the more important details of the transaction that's at hand. i fully expect them to do that. i don't think they will take the -- they won't take their foot off the gas in this instance. i don't think they have made a decision whether donald trump is going to testify at this point but they are going to absolutely attempt to bury stormy daniels in this case. >> bill: i want to conclude what the producers are telling us on the long email. the statement says the nda that all rumors about a relationship with trump and hush money are false. daniels says she did not write it. it was given to her and told to sign it. therefore she did. so then you get to the payment

portion with michael cohen that i imagine maybe comes tomorrow or even next week. i don't know who you call next. you go from stormy daniels to michael cohen? i'm sure the lawyers have a lot of opinions on that. but remember what jeffrey mcconney said last week. the controller at the trump organization worked for the company for 36 years and the one responsible for putting in the company ledger what payment went to whom and why. he was the one that had the legal payment put into the record. and he said quote, there are a number of accounts you can post it to. we were paying a lawyer, michael cohen, so i said to put it -- post it to legal expenses in the general ledger. jonathan, i imagine we may come back to that point very soon. >> i think so. the funny thing is, that point happens to be the case, right? this is all about how these payments were denoted on

business records. and many people still insist that this is perfectly accurate as a legal expense. if you remember, the hillary campaign first of all lied about funding the steele dossier but they ultimately hid it by listing it as a legal expense. they were fined for that by the f.e.c. but they litigated that and insisted no, that was a legal expense that was paid through mark he lie answer. it was part of a larger payment to cohen. now, it is not clear what the prosecutors are saying. should they have denoted that as avoidance costs or personal payment to avoid scandal? it is all incredibly vague. but that is the issue in this case. and what is also fascinating is that you have stormy daniels saying sure, i signed a sworn statement that there was no a

fair but i really didn't read it. once again you are left with your jaw open as to well, why should we believe you now? you say you were coached by the prosecutors. do you believe what you are saying now? >> dana: kerri, i want to play something else. you mentioned your work as a communications expert as well and a great job at department of justice. president trump started off his comments today talking about the other news that is happening which was president biden's flip-flop and reversal and support for israel in terms of some weapons. listen and get your take on the other side. >> what biden is doing with respect to israel is disgraceful. if any jewish person voted for joe biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. he is totally abandoned israel as nobody can believe it. i guess he feels good about it because he did it as a political

decision. you have to do the right decision, not the political decision. >> dana: this is the news of the day. if this were a normal campaign where you didn't have one of the candidates in court but because he is in court he has to rely on surrogates. burgum argued the case he thinks it is wrong. what about the president's use of his time talking about news of the day? >> great way to start the day. he would be able to go wall-to-wall on this today given the fact our president announced abandoning our strongest ally in the middle east. that would be a big day normally in a political campaign. smart he talked about that. he started to talk about that last week going through today and then he goes into his case and i also think it is smart when he reads straight from the articles themselves. it's a way to dance around the gag order while saying it is not just me.

you are the people saying this including news organizations that normally don't support me. >> dana: all right, kerri, thank you so much. we have lots more coming. the cross examination is underway and we are getting great detail from our producers inside the courtroom. >> this case must be taken out of judge merchan's hands. he is totally conflicted. he is totally conflicted like probably no judge has ever been conflicted before. it's good to get some fresh air. fresh air? hi guys! bill, you look great! now that i have inspire, i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. no mask! no hose! just sleep. give me this thing. where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com.

oh no. running low? with chewy, always keep their bowl full. save 35% on your first autoship order. get the food they love. delivered again and again. (♪) [thud] raising you was no bed of roses. are you getting me anything for mother's day? go to 1-800-flowers.com. oh my gosh! wow! gorgeous! i feel like royalty. thank you. 1-800-flowers.com. happy mother's day. happy mother's day! veteran homeowners, car payments are getting out of control. get a newday 100 va cash out loan at lower mortgage rates to pay off those high rate car loans.

♪ with fastsigns, create factory grade visual solutions to perfect your process. ♪ fastsigns. make your statement™.

>> bill: so back inside the courtroom reading some emails. we mentioned lydia hu a short time ago. she is a lawyer. she is in the courtroom and she is describing the cross

examination of stormy daniels as effective. she believes susan nicklaus is the attorney for donald trump undermining stormy's claim she wanted her story out which paints the picture that stormy extorted trump. a reporter from slate magazine who was willing to go ahead and report the story but slate apparently was not willing to give her any money for it. so the attorney for donald trump then suggested that slate would not pay you so instead you sold your silence to michael cohen. and hence you get the money and the $130,000. that point made inside court. >> dana: former deputy assistant attorney general tom dupree. we haven't had a chance to hear your thoughts how this is going in new york city? >> i suspect there are some in the prosecutors camp who are regretting to call her as a witness. it wasn't helpful to the prosecution the first day.

they overplayed their hand in eliciting sordid and salacious details irrelevant to the charges the jury is considering. what we've seen this morning so far on day two of stormy on stand is not helping the prosecution. i this i the defense has been doing an effective job in cross examining her and she was motivated by financial incentives and get back at trump and overall starting to poke holes in what the prosecution was trying to establish. >> bill: brett tolman. in the end you believe the testimony of stormy daniels is only injected because the prosecution and judge want to make donald trump look bad. do you, though, have a duty to establish that there was some sort of relationship here between these two? >> well, bill, you certainly have -- you have as part of what you need to prove that this payment, you know, that was

wrongly, you know, fixed in the books was a payment that was supposed to be hush payments that would be utilized in order to assist in the election. you know, yes, there is that connection. but the bottom line, the prosecutors maybe overplaying their hand believed they would put stormy daniels in there and make donald trump uncomfortable and look bad and counting on the jury to look at that. there is no other reason why you would want to put your case in jeopardy on appeal by bringing out so much unfairly prejudicial facts to the case you are trying to prosecute other than dirty the defendant in front of the jury. >> bill: stay with us one moment. we have the court case in new york. there are court cases all over america. just this week there were significant developments in a lot of these other cases. we can show our viewers what's going on right now. one is underway in new york that we are talking about here.

one on hold, january 6th election interference trial. one postponed in florida just two days ago, classified documents case. then you have the georgia matter in fulton county on hold because an appeals court is looking over what the judge decided about fani willis. judge, how would you decide these and the fate if the tide is coming in or out for the defendant, donald trump? >> i would summarize it this way. when you put your political agenda above facts and a careful analysis of the law before pursuing a criminal case, you put yourself into a potential box. there is very limited wiggle room when it comes to what you have to prove and the case has to -- you know, bill, i used to say this. if my case got stronger the further i pursued it, then i knew i was on to something. if it began to weaken and crumble and i started to have

issues and problems and here these issues are substantial. the appeal in fulton county is directly indicating that they are concerned about the compromise, potential compromise of the d.a. which is a big deal when you already have allegations of a political case at hand. the mar-a-lago case, this is a lot bigger than people realize. this is allegations of evidence tampering, of brady violations, of other potential abuse by the prosecution so significant that the judge said i'm not going to set another trial date. we are going to get to the bottom of all of these allegations of abuse. the reason that's important is because there is a speedy trial act that is in play in mar-a-lago and the judge is not too concerned about it. which may be tipping her hand she may be dismissing this case. >> dana: tom, can we get your thought on the cases and the

timing of all this and the stages? >> sure, all those cases are basically the state of suspended animation. in each one of those three cases you can attribute to that errors that the prosecutors themselves made. in the january 6th case in washington, d.c., jack smith waited a heck of a long time before bringing those charges. so it shouldn't surprise everyone given the complexity of the legal issues it would take court time to sort those out. jack smith made the decision to charge in florida for the documents case. he could have brought it in d.c. where he might have had a smoother path getting a trial before the election. in georgia the reason that case is on ice one of the most historic misjudgments of all time, fani willis's decision to have an affair with one of her prosecutors is her own fault. the fact the courts take time to resolve the issues and none of the cases look like they'll go the trial before the election in most if not all instances it is

attributeable to decisions and mistakes the prosecutors themselves made. >> bill: kerri, give us legal interpretation of the note we're getting right now. susan nicholas, one of the attorneys for donald trump is asking several questions talking about a payment for a documentary. stormy daniels says someone called her a human toilet and she capitalized on the joke and the best person to flush the orange turd down. she meant president trump. what are they trying to drive at with this point? >> none of this can play well with the jury. the defense is trying to extract two main points here. one that stormy daniels makes a lot of money and famous because of her relationship with donald

trump. it's to her benefit to stay in the spotlight and be there as a witness and all of that. secondly, stormy daniels hates donald trump. she said it under oath on tuesday. she defiantly acknowledged the post she has written about him and dancing down the street if he went to jail. right now we're getting notes from our producer in the courtroom talking about a post where she said she would flush donald trump down the toilet. this all plays into a jury's mind when they think about whether a witness is credible and how much this person is there just because they hate this guy and want to get back at him. don't forget this relationship that she had with donald trump, one thing that has come out is that it was pretty transactional. yes, she had a sexual encounter with him but she talked about on the stand how she stayed in touch with him because she thought it would help him professionally. wanted to get on his shows and donald trump didn't come through for her. what happened was she got mad, thought i can make some money

off this. i'll get something out of this. tried to sell her story for years, unsuccessful. saw the access hollywood tape i can make money and get back at the guy not following through what he said he would do for me. >> dana: great points there. all our legal team are standing by and getting detailed comments and analysis is underway by our team here. this legal panel will stick with us and take a quick break and be right back. (restaurant noise)

[announcer] introducing allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. allison! over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla.

i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance

through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock,

so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information. >> bill: 10:30 in new york. back on the stand stormy daniels has been there for almost an hour still under cross examination by trump's lawyers in the criminal trial against him. eric shawn live outside the courthouse to bring us up to date where stormy daniels was just asked about a tweet she sent out when trump was indicted in this case and went on to say she was hawking merchandise and it was her job. what else, eric?

good morning. >> let me first start with the headline in that former president trump says his lawyers are going to the appellate court to appeal judge merchan's gag order. the former president has been harshly critical saying it is unconstitutional. he was found in contempt of court already ten times trying to get it overturned. stormy daniels undergoing withering cross examination by trump attorney asking her about a lot of things involved in this case trying to portray her as an extortionist who would only agree to her interview about her claim with president trump is if she was paid and trying to hurt trump if he did not give you money. she asked stormy, shot back saying it was false. a lot of the testimony this morning centering on the non-disclosure agreement she signed with trump. she says the attorney and her

have been joisting over the statement saying they did not have an affair. she pressed stormy on why stormy wanted to get paid and was anxious about that bch election day in 2016. stormy said she thought trump would lose the election and if he did lose the election she wouldn't get her money. money and motive a lot of the center of this case now with the attorney, as well as the social posts that stormy had made that have been anti-trump. back to you. >> bill: thanks, good job down there. back to you briefly. >> dana: what's interesting about this also -- >> should have never been brought. alvin bragg didn't want to bring it. vance didn't want to bring it. he left an didn't bring it. everybody looked at it. southern district didn't bring it. federal elections didn't bring it. also a federal case, not a state case. they aren't allowed to do but these are minor details. >> dana: donald trump spoke a

short time ago. let's bring in bret baier. 100,000 questions for you. let's start with this one. this morning also president trump made some remarks about the news that broke during your show last night. that president biden has made this decision which many are calling, including a commentary magazine a betrayal of israel in not sending the weapons israel says it needs to fight back against terrorists holding hostages in gaza. what is your sense about how that is playing today when president trump is able to make a little comment on it today but he is not able and out there to campaign against it like he would in a normal situation. >> good morning. that's a big deal. i heard your commentary with kerri earlier. any other day this would be driving the international news. the difference between former president trump really taking this issue and president biden what he said to cnn last night.

he plain said that the weapons were stopped and that he was essentially drawing a red line about israel not going into rafah, which israel has said they are going to do to try to take out hamas. you have a lot of democrats now starting to speak out on this. i had senator john fetterman on the other night on special report and very specific he thought it was a horrible idea to slow or stop weapons going into israel especially precision guided bombs trying to prevent civilian casualties. this is a huge story that largely will get overlooked today in the wake of all this. >> bill: omar is predicting and talking about victory for the campus chaos. >> dana: encouraging more. >> bill: let's get back to the trial. "wall street journal" today says number one here, guys, it's easy to believe the prosecutions goal was as much to humiliate mr. trump before voters as it was to

sway the jury that mr. trump is a sexual predator, all right? now, think about that line and think about this abc news poll out over the weekend. support for trump if convicted at the bottom 4% say they will no longer support him. above that 16% would reconsider. 80% will continue to support. usa today poll on the verdict. the most intriguing number on this one is right there highlighted, 50% of the people they talked to believe that he have is guilty on some of the counts. i just -- put this together and sort of a political lens if you will. >> yeah, listen. i think that a lot of the perception of donald trump is baked in the cake prior to his time in politics. you look back into the access hollywood tape and the fallout from that. i do think the salacious talk and all of that, a lot of people thought it would have a big political impact on independents and suburban women.

we don't have a good sense of that yet. i do also think when stormy daniels said on the stand she hates donald trump and the tweets come out about her saying she would be proud to put him in jail, i assume some of those questions will be asked to michael cohen, too. it does impact things. it becomes more of a going after trump when you are looking at a very specific charge here about bookkeeping on a specific payment. >> dana: and bret, i also wonder if you have any sort of raw political gut instinct how this is playing out across the country. >> listen, it's getting a lot of headlines and a lot of talk. if you go places, it is like can you believe this? but as far as the impact by the time we get to november, it will be really interesting. if he gets convicted i think there is some impact. we don't have a sense of it. but i think more and more people look at this and say this is

targeting. and that some of this about donald trump is baked in the cake. trump himself is saying through his lawyers that he has stormy daniels lying on the stand about a number of different things. >> we have the quote you referred to. put it on the screen. the attorney says this. tuesday by the way. am i correct you hate president trump? yes. you want him to go to jail? she says i want him to be held accountable. why do you point to that as so significant? >> because whenever you have somebody who is trying to sway a jury and they say part of their thought process is that they hate the person who is facing these charges who could go to jail because of them, it does impact things. and we remember -- you have to remember it is how these jurors perceive this, not how we talk about it. i think most people who look at that and then they think about the next witness likely michael

cohen, those questions are coming, too. and he has a lot of podcasts and on-air stuff talking about his hatred now for donald trump. >> bill: fair points. >> dana: we have jonathan turley and andy mccarthy with us. andy, get your take about stormy daniels' cross examination happening today. waiting for the prosecution to call michael cohen and we find out from paul mauro earlier and checked it out on tiktok he is thinking he is announcing for congress and asking for money and subscribers and wearing a t-shirt with donald trump behind bars. how would -- would the defense team be able to bring this up in cross examination with michael cohen? >> it absolutely goes to his credibility for the reasons that bret just outlined. what you want if you are the jury, is to believe that you are getting information from people who are motivated mainly to tell

you the truth. and anything in the way of baggage which indicates that somebody might be shading what happened, shading a version of events because of personal animus toward the person on trial or for other reasons that don't have anything to do with the truth, that is a nightmare for a prosecutor if you are having to rely on somebody like michael cohen who already has tremendous credibility problems arising out of having pled guilty to perjury in federal court, to having a federal judge just about three weeks ago say that he committed perjury again either at his guilty plea or subsequent testimony, and who is given -- who has pled guilty to a variety of fraud cases in excess of $4.1 million worth of fraud. you start out behind the eight ball with a witness like that

and if he is preening about his motive and his hatred for the defendant before he gets on the stand, that's a disaster. >> bill: want to go back from the transcript from tuesday. she said i want him to be held accountable. kerri, you point out after that, the part where omitted on the screen was if convicted, she said, i absolutely want him to go to jail. that was the series of questions that she answered on tuesday. and your hunch right now is she is backfiring on the state much like you would argue some of the other witnesses did. like perhaps hope hicks. what gives you that hunch now? >> this is not going well for the prosecution. there are so many holes in her story. it is obvious she was in it to make money and saw an opportunity in donald trump. she isn't consistent in some of the details she is providing. when she is angry, hostile and proudly owning, i guess you could give her credit for owning

it and not distancing herself from the posts she puts out about trump. it will play in a jurors mind. she is biased, axe to grind and sees it as a continuation to make money off of donald trump. going back to my earlier point, if he were to go to jail -- not suggesting he is going to here. but if he were it would make it less likely she would have to pay him the hundreds of thousands of dollars he owes him. even though a federal court has ordered her to and she was refused to. >> dana: thank you for being here for legal analysis. it will continue right after this quick break.

>> bill: right now the defense cross examination continues of stormy daniels. somewhat interesting, i would argue, in the last few minutes trying to figure out the angle and direction by which donald trump's attorneys take this current case. still with us now andy mccarthy and kerri urbahn and jonathan turley and paul mauro. jonathan, we'll go to you. trying to get something queued up that paul found last night online that may portend what we might see with michael cohen. before we get there, jonathan,

how do you think trump's attorneys are doing today? when they made the decision to continue the cross examination after a full day of -- 36 hours and how do you think they're doing right now? >> i think they're doing very well. they have done well all along. the prosecutors were fully a ware this witness would disassembly on the stand. they really wanted to get these lurid details in front of the jury. and this was really made for television testimony. these prosecutors knew that they could get these details. they would play out on stations like msnbc, used in the election. it only reinforces this view this court case is an extension of politics. why else would you bring this dumpster fire into the

courtroom? and whatever they hope to achieve for the case, i think likely has been lost. her credibility was pretty low before. now it's non-existent. but at the end of the day, the defense, i think, has every reason to continue the examination. i have said long ago i do not believe that president trump could ever take the stand in this case on the advice of counsel. it would just be -- because of the judge's ruling on the scope of a cross examination by the prosecutors, because of the scope of stormy daniels's prior testimony, i can't see how he could do that even if he wanted to. so you have every reason in the world to keep her on the stand and to really make the prosecutors, frankly the court, pay for what they have allowed to unfold in that courtroom.

>> dana: kerri urbahn, can you comment on that as well? >> yeah, i'm reading the notes from our producer right now and again they are continuing to poke holes even in her memory and the renditions she has given throughout the years. so she gave to in touch in 2011 a version of the story where she said donald trump didn't ask her directly and yesterday she said it was the bodyguard. it speaks to her credibility and motivation. why is she there? why do her stories keep changing? it will all play into a juror's mind when they assess the facts and law at the end of this case. >> bill: okay. paul, i know you are still with us and we wanted to grab this picture off of tiktok from last night because michael cohen apparently that's how he spends his evenings. the shot, i can describe it for

viewers, it is him speaking off the cuff and comments on the screen wearing a t-shirt with donald trump in an orange jumpsuit behind bars. paul, you are an attorney for donald trump. who cohen is on the stand how quickly do you use it against him? >> i would use it pretty quickly because it is so current. i don't know, they haven't been given a witness list so we don't know exactly when we're going to get cohen, but it just demonstrates that literally as the trial is going on, this is all happening. you know, it is almost like this trial has begun to split into two different trials. there is this trial that's going on that i can only describe as donald trump revenge porn. it is just an exercise in dirtying him up and dirtying up his character and linking him to all these salacious details which have nothing to do with the actual case which seems to be going on in the background someplace relative to an accounting issue in service of a

second crime, which is still, as i said earlier, not been elucidated. this thing was poison. the indictment itself was leaked days before it was ever unsealed, presumably by alvin bragg's office. all 34 counts in detail were leaked. the document itself was probably leaked. why does it matter? that's a genuine e-felony in the penal law. definable clear e-felony. why donald trump's people didn't pursue it, i don't know. >> bill: we have it ready what you showed us. a screen grab we call it of michael cohen with the t-shirt last night having a tiktok party. what did you hear that he talked about? >> so, he is sort of somewhat pathetically begging for followers and trying to get me up to a certain numbers.

the thing most interesting to me is he started to say i'm not joking, i may run for congress. i'm very serious about this and putting it together in a zone. he seems to believe and convinced himself that he is leading some sort of a movement. i get almost a little bit of a messiah complex. it is going on as donald trump has a gag order on him speaking out against the government essentially which is why we have a first amendment. meanwhile he is running for the highest office in the land and here is the chief witness, while the trial is going on, wearing that t-shirt and engaging in just all of this hate trump rhetoric while talking about running for higher office. it is just the irony of it and the unfairness of it you don't have to be a lawyer to see. >> dana: one minute before a quick break. andy mccarthy, want to comment

on that? the photograph is striking of michael cohen. >> paul's testimony reminds me of the trial of the subway gunman which was also the manhattan d.a.'s office long ago where they basically took somebody who was the main state witness, who was a menacing figure that had a famous picture on the "new york post" of how menacing he looked on the subway at the time, and the d.a.'s office put him in a nice suit to testify and the first thing the defense lawyer did was have him identify the photo of what he looked like when he was actually out on the street. and he hung it up next to him on the witness box so that for a couple of days the jury could see what the d.a.'s office was trying to hoodwink is jury into thinking this guy was and what he actually was. it was a very powerful, very effective way to do it. i wouldn't be surprised if they came up with something like that. >> dana: interesting. >> bill: thank you, team.

mccarthy, turley, mauro, urbahn. more right after this. fees. sound too good to be true? if you have at least $100,000 to invest, get your investor's guide and see if it's right for you. using the finest materials, like indulgent memory foam, and ultra-conforming inner-springs, for a beautiful mattress, and indescribable comfort. save up to $800 on select adjustable

mattress sets at stearnsandfoster.com ( ♪ ) my back got injured very bad. i was off work for about a year. i heard about relief factor from my wife. i took it every day, three times a day, for three weeks. look at her and i said, "the pain is gone." and she said, i'm glad it helped. i said, "no, you don't understand. it's gone." you, too, can feel better every day with relief factor, a daily supplement that fights pain naturally. call or go online now for our 3-week quickstart, just $19.95. i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54.

what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

(♪) with wet amd, i worry i'm not only losing my sight, but my time to enjoy it. but now, i can open up my world with vabysmo. (♪) vabysmo is the first fda-approved treatment for people with wet amd that improves vision and delivers a chance for up to 4 months between treatments, so i can do more of what i love. (♪) (♪) vabysmo works differently, it's the only treatment designed to block 2 causes of wet amd. vabysmo is an eye injection. don't take it if you have an infection, active eye swelling, or are allergic to it. treatments like vabysmo can cause an eye infection or retinal detachment. vabysmo may cause a temporary increase in eye pressure after receiving the injection. there is an uncommon risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots. severe swelling of blood vessels in the eye can occur. most common eye side effects were cataract and broken blood vessels. open up your world with vabysmo. a chance for up to 4 months

between treatments with vabysmo. ask your doctor. >> bill: so in the short time that we have left here, her testimony continues and just reading through this about the day they met in 2006, lake tahoe. whether or not she had dinner. what she remembers from dinner. who gave her the number for donald trump. how she asked for the number. this is what is trying to be determined on behalf of his lawyers. >> dana: this has nothing to do with supposedly what alvin bragg brought the case. an accounting issue that even the federal election commission said they wouldn't pursue it. >> bill: before we get out of this, dana marie came into this world. happy birthday to you. >> dana: happy birthday to janice dean. harris faulkner next. here she is. >> harris: we'll pick it