Thread by @AnnaBower

Good morning from rainy New York City, where Donald Trump’s criminal trial is set to resume at 9:30 am ET.

On deck today? Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, is expected to continue his cross examination of Trump’s former “fixer,” Michael Cohen.

Follow along 👇 ⬇️ 👇

Scenes from The Line™️ to get into the former President’s criminal trial:

(1) A woman in a yellow poncho, crouched on top of her backpack as she lights up a joint.

(2) A mysterious mess (??) somewhere between spots 15 and 16 in line. That’s one way to save your spot!

I'm seated next to @TylerMcBrien in the overflow room as we wait for things to get started.

He glances over at the photo I just tweeted: "Your follower count is about to go down."

@TylerMcBrien When we left on Tuesday, Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, was about 2 hours into his cross examination.

It wasn't going well. Blanche's cross examination was disorganized, disjointed, and hard to follow.

Will we see an improved cross examination strategy today? Stay tuned..

@TylerMcBrien "All rise" as Justice Merchan enters the room.

In the audience today? Lauren Boebert, the congresswoman from Colorado. Seated between Boebert and Eric Trump is Matt Gaetz.

Once things get started, the parties immediately head to the bench for an out-of-earshot sidebar.

@TylerMcBrien While we wait for this extended sidebar to wrap up, catch up on what happened when Cohen took the stand on Tuesday, from me, @TylerMcBrien, @katherinepomps, and Ben Wittes:

lawfaremedia.org/article/michae…

@TylerMcBrien @katherinepomps Per hallway pool, Trump arrived carrying a stack of papers. Speaking to pool cameras, he said that "a lead person from the DOJ is running the trial. So Biden's office is running this trial."

This seems to be a reference to ADA Matthew Colangelo, who previously worked at DOJ.

As some have noted, Trump's gag order prohibits him from making public statements about "the district attorney's staff" with intent to materially interfere with counsel's work on in the case.

And now, at long last, the extended sidebar is over.

What was that about? We won't know until we get our hands on a transcript.

Justice Merchan directs an officer to bring Michael Cohen and the jurors back into the room.

Once the jurors are seated, Justice Merchan announces that they may need to work next Wednesday.

It's fine if not, he says, and he instructs them to let a court officer know if it might cause a problem for them.

And now we're back to Blanche's cross examination of Cohen.

Cohen's tie today appears to be pale yellow.

Blanche begins with a line of questioning about the phones that were seized from Cohen during an FBI search at his residence in 2018.

After those phones were returned to Cohen, he later voluntarily handed them over to the Manhattan district attorney's office.

Cohen says he gave the phones to an investigator with the DA's office named Jeremy Rosenberg.

Blanche has Cohen view an exhibit. It's text messaged between Cohen and Rosenberg.

But the exhibit is not in evidence, which means it's not "published" (i.e., displayed) to the jurors--or any of us--just yet.

(Take note @CoryMillsFL.)

@CoryMillsFL Blanche tries to admit the texts into evidence, but the prosecution objects.

After a brief sidebar, the objection is sustained.

@CoryMillsFL Cohen says he found out that Trump was indicted from the New York Times article.

BLANCHE: And detective Rosenberg confirmed to you that Trump had in fact been indicted? He told you it was "done"?

COHEN: "He identified a newspaper article."

@CoryMillsFL BLANCHE: Do you have an understanding about whether Rosenberg told you about the indictment before it was unsealed?

COHEN: No, sir.

@CoryMillsFL He didn't tell you before it was unsealed that it was "done," meaning Trump had been indicted? No, sir.

@CoryMillsFL Before the indictment was unsealed, did you say that you had "Goliath on his back"? Yes.

@CoryMillsFL Blanche asks another question about Cohen's texts with Rosenberg around the time of the indictment. Objection, sustained.

Your honor, may we approach again? Blanche asks.

"No," Merchan says flatly.

@CoryMillsFL Do you recall going on Mea Culpa podcast and talking about the indictment? Yes.

Blanche again asks Cohen to put on his Sony Walkman-style head phones to play a recording, presumably from the podcast. Cohen perches one hand on the side of the bench as he listens.

@CoryMillsFL That was your voice? Correct.
That was May 30, 2023? Correct.

Your honor, we ask to admit this into evidence. It is admitted over objections from the prosecution. We hear the audio.

@CoryMillsFL "I want to thank the Manhattan DA's office, with whom I spent countless hours," Cohen begins. He's got his podcast voice on in the recording -- a very different voice from what we've heard from Cohen thus far.

@CoryMillsFL More from the audio now played for the jury: Picture Trump having his mugshot taken, Cohen tells his listeners. It fills me with joy and sadness at the same, he says.

Blanche plays another podcast recording admitted into evidence.

We hear Cohen's voice (major podcast bro voice, again): Revenge is dish best served cold, he says on the audio. You better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to my family.

BLANCHE: There are countless other example from your podcast similar to what we heard?

COHEN: Correct.

Now we see a Truth Social post form March 15, 2023. It's the one in which Trump calls Cohen a "convicted jailbird."

You responded to this truth? "I'm not on Truth Social, sir."

[Who is? I wonder.]

BLANCHE: But you responded on X?

COHEN: Sounds correct.

BLANCHE: You recall saying on TikTok on the night before opening statements that you had "mental excitement" about this case? Yes.

BLANCHE: You knew at the time that there was a paralegal at the DA's office monitoring your social media? I believe so.

[Yes, I believe that is indeed a reference to America's Favorite Paralegal, Georgia Longstreet!)

Blanche turns to Cohen's 2018 testimony before a congressional committee.

That's one of the times you have lied under oath? Correct.

You submitted a 2 page letter in advance of your testimony? Correct.

And then you read the letter into the record under oath? Yes.

You lied about the Moscow project? Correct.
The number of times you spoke to President Trump? Correct.
You told the committee you never agreed to travel to Russia in connection to that contract and that you never thought about asking Trump to travel to Russia? Correct.

You knew those were lies when you said them under oath? Correct.
You said it was because of loyalty to Trump? I said that, yes.
And when you met w/ the special counsel on Aug. 7 the next year (in 2018), you lied again about the Trump Moscow project? Yes

So you lied under oath, and then you committed another felony....Objection, sustained.

Blanche tries again: You lied under oath, and then you lied when you met with the special counsel? Correct.

You pleaded guilty to lies before congress? Correct.

But you never pleaded to lies you told in meeting w/ special counsel? Correct.
And when you were sentenced to the lies you told to Congress [and other crimes], you took responsibility for those lies? Yes.

As he did on Tuesday, Blanche jumps between discrete events and times. The August 2018 plea. Cohen's sentencing. The lies before Congress. The FBI search. He covered much of this on Tuesday, and he's again struggling to make a coherent point with each line of questioning.

Blanche moves to Cohen's sentencing.
A few minutes into that hearing you are sworn in? Correct.
And you were told that you were under oath? Yes.
And a little later in that proceeding, you said that you evaded taxes? Correct.

(Correction: I think Blanche is actually talking about Cohen's Aug. 21, 2018 plea hearing. That it's unclear speaks to how hard it is to follow as he jumps around from event to event on the timeline...)

And no one induced you or threatened you to plead guilty? You said "no" when you were asked that under oath during that hearing? That's correct.
So that was a lie? Correct.

As he did during his direct examination, Cohen explains what he means by this: He felt that he shouldn't have been charged for the tax crimes, but prosecutors gave him only 48 hours to accept their plea offer or they were going to indict his wife.

Blanche turns to Cohen's sentencing.

After that sentence, you started saying that you did not commit the tax crime? No, sir. I repeated what I wrote in my sentencing memo: I take responsibility, but I did not think it was a crime I should have been charged with.

In the book you wrote, "Revenge," you called the tax charges "bogus"? Yes
You said the charges were 100% inaccurate? I did not believe I should have been charged. But I said that, yes.

You said on TikTok as recently as April 1 of this year that the tax case against you was the most corrupt prosecution in 100 years? Yes.
You said on CNN that you hope the "lies" about you re: tax evasion would all come out?

Objection from the prosecution. Sidebar.

After a brief sidebar, Blanche resumes. He shows Cohen a transcript form an appearance he made on CNN on March 23, 2023.

You said in that interview that you hoped the lies about the tax charges would come out? Yes.

You received a subpoena for materials from the defense in this case? Correct.
In response to that subpoena, did you provide proof or any materials that show the charges you pleaded guilty to are not appropriate?

Objection, sustained.

You believe Judge Pauley, the judge who sentenced you, is corrupt? Correct.
He's deceased, right? He is.
You believe Judge Pauley is in on it? I do.
You called Pauley and the prosecutors "fucking animals"? I did.

Cohen: I don't believe I should have been charged w/ the tax crimes. I should have received the same letter other people do stating that there's a problem with your taxes. I should have been able to meet with my CPA and keep things civil.

Blanche elicits testimony from Cohen in which he concedes that he has stated that he also believed he should not have been charged with crimes related to his home equity line of credit.

So you were lying when you pleaded guilty to that crime? I took a "global plea," Cohen explains. But eventually agrees that yes, that was a lie.

So you lied more than once before Judge Pauley? Correct.
And the reason you lied to a federal judge was because the stakes affected you personally? Yes.

And there's no doubt that you know what perjury means? "I know what perjury means."

Sorry we're jumping around a little bit, Blanche says now. But you testified before congress in 2019. And you said that you had confessed to your mistakes? Yes.
Did you tell congress you had lied to Judge Pauley? I did not.

Blanche shows Cohen a transcript of part of his testimony before Congress.

You repeatedly said before congressmen that you accepted responsibility? And that I was going to prison, correct.

Do you agree with me that lying under oath is not accepting responsibility?

"I accepted responsibility and I am suffering the consequences as a result."

[FWIW, I don't understand what Blanche is doing here. People plead guilty to crimes that they don't believe they should have been charged for all the time. It's part of plea bargaining. There are two lawyers on this jury. They will know that. Most people know this.]

You've blamed lots of people for things?
You've blamed the judge? Yes, sir.
You've blamed Trump? Yes.

Just when it seems that we're moving on to another chapter of this cross examination...

Did you or your lawyers say anything to Judge Pauley about whether you felt threatened or pressured into your guilty plea? Did not.

[I think we're about to go to morning break, so I have to step out for a TV hit.

Catch me on @MSNBC this hour, and follow @TylerMcBrien in the meantime while I step out for a few minutes!]

@TylerMcBrien I'm back. Trump is back. Blanche is back. Cohen is back. Justice Merchan is back. The jurors are back.

We are so back.

@TylerMcBrien Blanche turns to Cohen's White House aspirations back in 2016/2017.

The truth is, you really wanted to work in the White House? No, sir.
You wanted to be named WH chief of staff? No, sire.

@TylerMcBrien Correction: Cohen replied "No, sir." (Though I kinda wish he'd said "No, sire.")

@TylerMcBrien Blanche asks Cohen about a conversation he had with his daughter after Reince Priebus was selected as Trump's chief of staff.
You told your daughter you were frustrated? Yes, that I wasn't considered.

@TylerMcBrien You wanted to be special counsel to the president in November of 2016? You had a conversation with your daughter about that? Yes, what I was referring to was personal attorney to the president.

Reince Priebus didn't like that title -- "special counsel to the president" -- correct? I believe that's correct.
And Trump expressed frustration that his team hadn't come up with a role for you? Correct.
You told your daughter that the chief of staff, Priebus, got to pick what your role was? Yes, sir.

@TylerMcBrien Cohen explains that the role he ha d been asking Trump for was "special counsel to the President," but what it really meant was personal attorney to the President. It was a "hybrid" role, he said.

At what point did you switch from wanting to be in the White House general counsel's office? I never did, Cohen says. He always wanted to be personal attorney to the president. Cohen says he told his daughter he wasn't the right person for Chief of Staff and that it wasn't in his qualifications.

"It was always supposed to be personal attorney to the president," Cohen insists.

You were embarrassed that after all the work you did for him you were left with the title of personal attorney and nothing more? Cohen says personal attorney to the president was the exact role I should play, and they gave me that. And I was able to monetize it, Cohen says, referring to his ability to get outside consulting contracts based on his perceived proximity to Trump.

@TylerMcBrien Blanche continues trying to elicit testimony from Cohen about his WH ambitions. He's trying to poke holes in Cohen's narrative that he didn't want a WH job & always wanted to be Trump's personal attorney. Cohen remains firm: He always wanted the personal attorney position.

Blanche turns to the episode in which Cohen caused his attorney to submit made-up legal citations in a motion related to Cohen's supervised release. Cohen says he used an AI software to find case law for the motion. It delivered "phantom results"--cases that don't exist.

Now we're--maybe?--getting to the substance of the facts of this case.

Blanche starts with a call Cohen said he made to Keith Schiller in order to get in touch with Trump about the Stormy Daniels deal in 2016.

You recall that on that call you discuss the Stormy Daniels matter and that you were going to move forward and fund the deal? Yes.
Do you have a recollection what you said yo him that day? We talked about the matter, and it was resolved.

You have a distinct and specific recollection, do you not, that you spoke to Trump on that day in October around 8 am? Yes, sir.
Do you recall talking about this phone call when you met w/ prosecutors before your testimony? Objection, sustained.

Do you recall ever talking to prosecutors about that call before your grand jury testimony? I don't recall.
On Tuesday, you were shown a call log with Schiller, you recall that, right? I do.
And you recall being interviewed on March 7 last year and not saying anything about this call? Like I said, I don't recall.

Blanche attempts to refresh Cohen's recollection. But as he proffers a document for Cohen to review, the prosecution objects. The parties approach the bench for a sidebar.

Blanche returns to the lectern. He displays a document for the witness. Based on Blanche's description, it seems to show notes from one of Cohen's meeting with prosecutors as Blanche tries to refresh Cohen's recollection about whether he said anything re: the 10/24/16 call.

Cohen testifies that around that time in October 2016, he began receiving a series of harassing calls. It was a 14 year old. Cohen texted Schiller on Oct. 24, saying who can I call about harassing calls to my office. The dope forgot to block his number. Schiller said "call me."

Blanche displays the call log between Cohen and Schiller. It shows that Cohen and Schiller exchanged calls sometime on the evening of Oct. 24.

And this is the call that you testified about on Tuesday that you had a conversation about President Trump? Yes, sir.

Blanche: Let's look at what happens next. At 8:04, you text Mr. Schiller the number of the 14.....Objection, not in evidence.

Your honor, I offer the texts between Schiller and Cohen into evidence. Hoffinger says he needs to lay foundation.

Blanche lays foundation, and the exhibit is admitted into evidence. But the defense hasn't redacted the phone numbers, so only the jury can see it for now. (Not those of us in the overflow room).

Blanche sets out an alternative theory: That Cohen called Schiller that night about the 14 year old who was harassing him, not about getting in touch w/ Trump re: the Stormy Daniels matter.

Cohen: Part of it was the 14 year old, but I knew Schiller was with Trump at the time.

Blanche: Five minutes ago I asked you about the 14 year old and you said you didn't recall. But now you have a memory of it. And it was a lie. You did not talk to Trump not that night, right? You spoke to Schiller about the 14 year old? Blanche raises his voice, practically yelling.

COHEN: "Based on the records I reviewed...I believe I spoke to President Trump on that night."

BLANCHE: "We are not asking for your belief...this jury...."

OBJECTION. Sustained.

Oof. Over the past 15 minutes, Blanche has oscillated between yelling and hissing his questions.

As the clock ticks toward 1 pm, he says maybe now is a good time to take a break.

"See you at 2:15," Justice Merchan says.

We're back from lunch (chicken caesar wrap, again, shout out Cafe Lafayette).

@TylerMcBrien has moved to the courtroom. I'm in overflow with Ben Wittes, who is indeed wearing a dog shirt to the former President's criminal trial. ("It's technically a wolf shirt," he tells me.)

@TylerMcBrien The parties are arguing about whether Blanche's earlier line of questioning about Cohen's texts with the DA's office investigator misled the jurors about whether the fact of the indictment's existence had been unsealed when the news was supposedly leaked.

The prosecution wants a limiting instruction to remedy any potential misperception cause by Blanche's line of questioning. Justice Merchan is going to think about it.

The jurors file back in. Cohen is back on the stand.

"Good afternoon, Mr. Cohen."

"Mr. Blanche," Cohen says with a hoarse voice. Seconds later, a court officer hands Cohen a glass of water. He nods in appreciation.

Blanche starts with another line of questioning about the timing of the indictment being unsealed and when the news became public.

I asked you about TV appearances you did the day Trump was indicted, he says. Cohen says that he had read the New York Times article breaking the news of the indictment at the time he did those appearances.

Now we're back to the texts we were talking about before lunch, between Cohen and Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard.

Correction: These are the texts between Cohen and the 14-year-old who was making harassing phone calls.

Around 7 pm on Oct. 24, 2016, Cohen tells the kid to have his parent of guardian reach out before the secret service reaches out to them.

I want to go through a timeline of what you testified about on Monday. You said in 2011, you came across a poll about Trump running for president? Yes.

You created a website, ? Correct.

Fair to say the press regarded this as a stunt? Yes, sir.shouldtrumprun.com

In 2011, there was a story in the National Enquirer about you starting ? Yes
You were one of the sources for that story? Yes, sir.
You worked very hard at that time to get positive stories in the press about Trump? Yes
And positive stories about you? Yesshouldtrumprun.com

Can you explain to the jury how you go about getting a reporter to say positive things about you/Trump Org? I know reporters at many newspapers. Have longstanding relationship with them. What I would do is reach out and ask them if they're interested in doing an article. I would give them the exclusive on it.

What about how you dealt w/ negative stories? That's different. The reporters would reach out to me, say we're doing a story on this, we would like you to comment on this. I would go to Trump's office, discuss with him, craft a response, take it back to the journalist.

You did that all the time? Had a rolodex of journalists? Yes.
You never reached out to a reporter without checking in with Trump? It was my "routine" to check in with him about it. He would "blow up with me" if I got it wrong, I would probably lose my job.

Cohen says there were times when publications picked up a story from other outlets. And so after that Cohen would send out the same response over and over again.

"I would always get a comment or something" from Trump when initially responding to a story, Cohen testifies. He reiterates that he would probably lose his job if Trump didn't like the response. That's why he did it.

In May or so of 2011, Trump decided he wasn't going to run? Yes.
And then later that year you heard about the story re: Daniels on the blog ? YesTheDirty.com

You handled that story by threatening legal action? Yes
And you've used that tool many times over the years? Yes, sir.
And some of the reporters that you had a strong relationship include people like Chris Cuomo? Yes
Maggie Haberman? Yes, sir.

Who does Maggie Haberman work for? The New York Times.
When did you meet her? 20 years ago.
Would you say your relationship is strong? I would.
You asked her to write positive stories about you? I did

You asked her to write a story about you as Trump's personal story, saying how good it was? Yes.
In exchange, you gave her tips? Not in exchange. I would use Ms. Haberman if I believed a story was something the Times would run.

You recorded a lot of conversations with reporters? I wouldn't say a lot.
How many? 40.

(Laughter -- maybe some of it nervous laughter? -- among the press in the overflow room.)

Did there come a time when you stopped recording convos with reporters? After the election.

Which election? 2016.

You didn't record conversations w/ reporters in 2017 or 2018? I would have to check.

We'll check together in a minute, Blanche says.

Do you recall sharing a recording w/ Ms. Haberman to help her write a story? I recall sharing a recording, I don't recall the exact nature of it.

Blanche proffers an exhibit to assist Cohen's recollection. It's texts between Haberman and Cohen, though we can't see the content.

Did you tell people you recorded them? No, sir.

It's not illegal in New York for one party to record, Cohen says.

Haberman has written a lot of stories about you over the years? I don't know how to characterize a lot.

Blanche suggests it's 38 and shows Cohen an exhibit that, based on his description, seems to show a number of NYT clippings or headlines about Cohen.

Keep in mind: Maggie Haberman is in the courtroom while Blanche asks these questions.

So you said you recorded about 40 calls with reporters. But there were 95 secret recordings on your phone? Yes.

Let's talk about the recording you made of your then-client. You understand it's not ethical to record a client? I do.

You were a member of the NY bar? Yes.
You understood it was unethical? Except of course under the crime-fraud exception rule.

[Note: That, uh, isn't really how the crime-fraud exception works...]

You testified about a story that the Nat'l Enquirer alerted you of regarding Dina Sajudin? Yes.

Cohen agrees that the story being shopped by Sajudin was "completely false."

At the time you spoke to Trump about the Sajudin story -- which claimed that Trump had an illegitimate child -- Trump said he was worried about his employees reaction to the story? So it was important to keep it from getting out? That's correct.

Now onto the McDougal story. You testified that you were worried this story would impact the campaign? Correct.
But Trump didn't share your view, did he? I'm not sure I agree with that.

You told the government that Trump didn't think this story would hurt him? I would need to see that document.

Blanche proffers a document to refresh Cohen's recollection. Glasses perched on his nose, Cohen scans the document on the screen in front of him.

President Trump at least initially didn't think the McDougal story would hurt him? Initially, yes.

One thing Trump was worried about with respect to this story was his family? His wife, his children? Yes.

You said you had a phone call w/ Trump on June 16, 2016. They showed you messages with Schiller. You said it was another time you called Schiller and he gave the phone to Trump.

But you don't have a specific recollection to a telephone call you had in June 2016? No, sir.
It was a long time ago? Correct.
You got a lot of calls? 14,000 calls a year? Yes, sir.

So when you testified on Monday and on Tuesday about specific conversations you had with Howard, Pecker, Trump...you were not testifying from a specific recollection of that call, were you? I was. I was.

Cohen explains his recollection of the calls further: These phone calls are things I've been talking about for six years. They were extremely important. I did not recall that the calls happened at a specific time of day. But I recalled the conversations I had.

BLANCHE: But I'm asking you about your specific recollection of a phone call you had in June of 2016. You don't have a specific recollection of that call, do you?

COHEN: Can you show me the call?

Blanche pulls up the call log.

Blanche directs Cohen to a June 16, 2016 call with Trump. The duration is around 2 minutes.

BLANCHE: So do you have a specific recollection of this call?

COHEN: I recalled the conversation based upon the other documents I looked at and reviewed.

BLANCHE: Do you remember talking to Chris Cuomo seconds before this call?

COHEN: We were talking about my appearance on his show.

BLANCHE: So you have a specific recollection of a call you had with Chris Cuomo eight years ago?

COHEN: It was a long call, over an hour, and I recorded it as a way of contemporaneous note taking.

I want to talk about the recording you made of Trump, Blance says now.

The information you were talking about transferring from David Pecker included a secret box of materials Pecker had? Yes. Cohen explains that Pecker was being considered for a position at Time magazine. And there was concern that Pecker wouldn't be able to take the Trump files/stories with him when he leaves. And that perhaps the new person at AMI might not be as favorable to Trump as Pecker had been.

Eventually, you learned there was nothing in those files? I was told by Pecker don't worry, there's nothing in the files after he was not given the position at Time.

BLANCHE: Trump mentions cash in that recording?

COHEN: Yes.

BLANCHE: You've talked before about how Trump would purchase buildings with cash? Meaning no financing?

COHEN: I may have used that term.

BLANCHE: No, no. There were times when Trump bought properties and didn't finance it?

COHEN: I'm not aware of that.

Blanche is trying to get Cohen to say that Trump didn't necessary mean pay with paper bills when he mentioned "cash" on the recording. He wants him to concede that "cash" could mean no financing on the deal, as opposed to a suitcase full of cash situation.

No, no, Cohen insists. He meant cash like bills. That's why I clarified "check" in response.

As Cohen recorded his conversation with Trump, he received a call. It came in on the phone he was recording Trump on. After he hung up, Cohen says he continued to speak with Trump for a few minutes. He didn't resume recording the conversation, he testifies.

Now Blanche turns to Cohen's use of Signal -- the encrypted messaging service.

But when you negotiated the NDA paperwork for the Daniels deal, Blanche says, you didn't use Signal? No, it was email.

We're on our afternoon break. T-minus 36 minutes until the jurors are set to be excused for the day.

While we wait....can you spot me @TylerMcBrien @ClaireMeynial @AWeissmann_ in this great @lizadonnelly drawing of the press in the overflow room?

@TylerMcBrien @ClaireMeynial @AWeissmann_ @lizadonnelly We're back, and Justice Merchan announces that he's discussed the potential conflict that an alternate juror has next Thursday. The juror has an appointment at 1:30 that day, but since it's an alternate the court plans to play it by ear. We'll see where we are next week.

Back to Cohen's cross examination.

Blanche -- who has seemed to find a rhythm within the past hour or so on cross -- says he wants to talk about the $130K Cohen paid to Davidson for the Daniels deal.

Do you recall making a statement to Mr. Davidson that Ms. Daniels was extorting Trump? Yes.

And you went a long time without paying? Yes, several weeks.

You referred to it as "payoff" on direct? Yes

But to be sure, this was a completely legal non-binding contact? Yes

Blanche pulls up the Daniels contract.

Then and now, in your mind this was a completely legal contract? Yes.

Non-disclosure agreements happen all the time? Yes, sir.

You testified that you lied on the account opening documents with your bank, saying that it was for consulting, because they might have further questions? Or that they wouldn't open up the account, but correct.

But all the parties in this transaction had attorneys? Yes.

And you were a lawyer at the time? Yes

Hoffinger, on behalf of the prosecution, asks to approach. Sidebar.

Then we're back.

You reported directly to Trump at the Trump Org? Yes, sir.

You did legal work for the org? Not much legal work.

You did legal work for Trump personally? Yes.
You didn't think you needed a retainer because you worked for the Trump Organization, you were salaried? Correct.
And you testified that when you were Trump's personal attorney in 2017 you had no retainer agreement? Correct

But in the entire time that you worked for the Trump Org, you never had a retainer agreement? Correct.
And you were acting as a lawyer during that time? I did both legal and non-legal matters. Whatever Trump wanted me to do.

If that included doing legal work for Melania Trump, for example, you did it? Yes sir.
Because under NY legal rules, you don't need a retainer agreement? Correct.

Now Blanche turns to Cohen's 2018 response to the FEC complaint regarding his payment to Daniels.

Is it correct that you showed the FEC complaint to a bunch of reporters? Yes.

And you were very angry when it was filed? Said you would file for Rule 11 sanctions? Yes.

This is the statement you issued to the press in response to the FEC complaint? Yes.

You didn't want to provide any further comment? Yes.

And so that's why you put that in the statement? My concern was that they would see that I wrote neither the Trump Organization or the campaign were involved in the transaction and might follow up asking questions about Trump's personal involvement.

In Feb. 2018 you recorded yourself talking to reporters, telling them the statement was true? Yes

And you told those reporters that you weren't lying, you were a bad liar? I believe so

But your testimony during this trial is that you were lying when you told them that? Yes

You worked with attorneys to write this FEC letter in response to the complaint? Yes. I have characterized the language here as deceptive.

Is it your testimony that you lied to your lawyers? No, sir. OBJECTION, sustained.

Why don't we stop here for today? Merchan says.

Merchan provides the usual instructions to the jurors: Don't read the transcripts. Don't research any factual or legal issues about the case. And so on.

Hope you have a good weekend, see you Monday at 9:30 am, the judge says.

The jurors file out, but the proceedings aren't quite done for the day.

We're using this time to discuss the scope of the testimony of a potential expert witness for the defense.

Merchan previously ruled on some matters regarding the permissible scope of the testimony of the defense team's campaign finance expert, Bradley Smith, during the pre-trial phase of the proceedings.

Bove is up to again discuss the permissible scope of Smith's testimony that they want to elicit. Among other things, they want Smith to talk about the "irrespective rule" under FEC regulations and the "press exemption,” which Bove says is based in the FECA statute and FEC regulations.

Colangelo, on behalf of the prosecution, pops up to say that the proffered testimony outlined by the defense flies in the face of the court's earlier order on the scope of expert testimony. It's "totally outside" and "way beyond" what your honor already ruled, he contends.

Bove, in reply, says that because of the way the prosecution has structured the case, the jury needs to be informed of the principles of campaign finance law.

Merchan: I don't think the fact that each of you have submitted proposed jury instructions changes my earlier ruling on the expert testimony. He directs the parties to the language in his earlier ruling, and reads this paragraph aloud:

JUSTICE MERCHAN: As I listen to your presentation, Mr. Bove, it sounds like you want me to enlarge this decision quite a bit. What you've described does sound like you want your expert to testify to expert opinions on the law...We are definitely not going to go there.

Justice Merchan says that he will consider the matter further, but "until you hear differently from me," nothing has changed.

Thank you judge, that's understood, Bove says.

Now we turn to scheduling.

JUSTICE MERCHAN: I'm doing everything possible to avoid big breaks between summations and deliberations...You asked me if we could start early, I'm going to look into that. But unfortunately we can't work on Wednesday.

JUSTICE MERCHAN: How much more do you have of Mr. Cohen?

BLANCHE: Not a lot. I think we'll finish cross Monday before the morning break.

MERCHAN: Any other witnesses for the defense case?

BLANCHE: We anticipate reaching a decision on rebuttal witnesses soon...we don't anticipate that they will be very long, other than Mr. Smith. I'm not speaking about President Trump, but that's another decision we need to make.

MERCHAN: If we wrap up Monday, we will have pre-charge conference that day. Please be prepared, he cautions, to begin summation on Tuesday.

And that's all for today, folks! No court tomorrow due to Barron Trump's high school graduation.

Per usual, I'll discuss the day's events w/ Ben Wittes and @TylerMcBrien at 5:30 p.m. ET.

Join us then, and subscribe to the @lawfare YouTube channel!

Thanks to all who followed along this week! You all make the 18 hour days worth it.

As we reach the (possible?) home stretch of Trump's first trial, we hope you'll consider supporting our coverage.

Thanks, again, to those who have already done so!

givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…