Exhibits 35 and 36
47:41 Share

Thank you.

Hi, welcome back to Prosecuting Donald Trump. It's Tuesday, May 7th. And as we are doing these days, because the news is so fast and furious, it is 10.11 a.m. I'm Andrew Weissman, and I'm here with Mary McCord. Good morning, Andrew. So, Mary, you know, it's so funny when we were talking, because we actually do talk a little bit just before we start, in case... Like moments. I know it sounds like there's... I know...

I know it sounds like we don't prepare at all. We actually do a lot of reading, but we actually spend a few minutes discussing how we're going to approach today. And one of the things both of us were saying is, well, we really do need to talk about Hope Hicks even more.

even though both of us were like, isn't that like four years ago? I know. It feels like it. It does because we're both of us have so much to say about what happened in the trial yesterday with Jeff McConaughey, the Trump organization controller. But we do actually want to talk about Hope Hicks. Mary, I'm dying to hear what you thought about her. And then we are going to talk about Jeff McConaughey and sort of what we anticipate going forward. So that's sort of a

We're very much going to be about the New York trial, but we have more on our plate than that, Mary. What else are we going to talk about?

Well, yes, we will talk about the additional finding of contempt by Judge Mershon and his very explicit warning to Donald Trump that these fines of $1,000 apiece, if they're not adequate to prevent him from violating the order and impacting the fair administration of justice, then he's going to really consider incarceration. So we'll talk a minute about that. And then we'll talk a little bit about what's been going on in the last week in the Mar-a-Lago case.

a few developments there. And, you know, the other cases, honestly, nothing's going on. They're just sitting there. So, um, like a lead balloon.

That's because we're all sitting on tenterhooks with respect to the D.C. case. We're waiting for the Supreme Court decision. But with that, should we turn to Hope Hicks and her testimony? And maybe I can frame it this way, which is I was very much thought that she was a realist.

really devastating witness for the state. And I thought she filled a very important hole that was developing with respect to the case. And I really didn't understand some of the arguments, which is, oh, she sort of gave stuff to both sides. I mean, it's not like she doesn't have anything for the other side, but I just thought that was the wrong take. If I were the defense lawyer, I would be like going, I'd have choice words that we don't use on a PG-

Yeah. Podcast. But Mary, what did you think? Well, I agreed that she was very powerful witness on, you know, for the people in support of their argument. But I also can, you know, I mean, you and I can both put on defense hats and you have actually been a defense attorney. I actually have not. But I feel like my job as a prosecutor was always to think, how would the defense argue it? And I can I can think about the things that they would would argue. But just first of all, the reason she is so important is because unlike some of the other witnesses that

This is somebody, well, really, unlike Michael Cohen, who we're going to hear from, unlike Stormy Daniels, who apparently is on the stand. She is somebody who is very, very close to Mr. Trump and went and got her own attorney as opposed to other Trump organization or former Trump organization employees, such as those we're going to talk about who testified yesterday, who are being having their attorneys paid for by Trump organization. She doesn't have an ax to grind with Mr. Trump.

She's not biased against him. So, you know, in terms of credibility, she's somebody, if you're the prosecutor, who's so important because the impression will be that she's very credible. It's clear she doesn't want to be there from what the reporting has been. She had broke down in tears at one point. So this is the kind of witness that just exudes credibility in front of a jury. So that's one reason I think that she was powerful. And

And certainly she also made powerful points that support the prosecution's case. You know, namely, I think that when the Access Hollywood tape broke just a couple of days before the debate,

the presidential debate and very shortly before the actual election. This was a big, big deal. There was a big concern that this would be devastating to Trump's campaign, particularly with female voters, but just in general. And notwithstanding that she testified that Trump himself sort of brushed it off initially as locker room talk,

It became clear as they did the debate preparation that this was a big, big deal. And in fact, the first question posed to Trump during the debate was about that Access Hollywood tape. And so the fact that that was such a big deal and she was able to explain and think she

she called it a crisis, right? What a crisis it was for the campaign really helps to explain why when just a few days later, she gets a call from the Wall Street Journal to comment on a story they're about to break about Karen McDougal and also mentioning Stormy Daniels. This seemed like something that really had the potential to be devastating and caused her, of course, to call Michael Cohen, call David Pecker, etc. And

sets up the entire motive and intent that the prosecution opened on, which is that, of course, Mr. Trump ultimately participated with others in creating false business records to conceal, with the intent to conceal other crimes, those other crimes being illegal,

election fraud based on the catch and kill scheme. He had conspired with Mr. Pecker and Mr. Cohen as far back as I think it was August 2015. And also to cover up other potential violations like tax fraud. And this is going to become important in a few minutes when we talk about yesterday's witnesses who really established those fraudulent business records, including tax records. So anyway, the point is that

that she sets up the intent for Mr. Trump to want to squash this and to be willing to pay to squash this because he wanted to conceal this. She also puts out there another motive, which is to conceal this from Melania Trump. She

She does say that when Mr. Trump heard news of the story breaking, he asked her to make sure that the papers would not be delivered to the private residence so his wife wouldn't see them. I totally agree with everything you said. The other thing that I thought she was very good at giving the state was she was asked about when

This story broke in 2000, the beginning of 2018 about the Stormy Daniels. Right, way after the fact, after Trump is president. Yes, exactly. Yes. So this story breaks and she has a conversation directly with Donald Trump. And he says a couple of things, but one of them is he makes it clear that he's aware of the catch and kill scheme. So at some point, according to her testimony, he is

aware of it because he says, I know that Michael Cohen made these payments and that essentially, thank God, this story broke after the election, not before. It's a result of Michael Cohen's payments. So she has it directly coming from his mouth that he is aware of that at that time. So the only issue is, at what point did he become aware of it? Not did he become aware of it?

And the reason that's important is until her testimony, people will recall that the agreement with Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump had three but not four signatures. Donald Trump did not sign. And Michael Cohen had said to Keith Davidson, per Keith Davidson,

that Michael Cohen might just have to pay this himself directly. And in fact, we know he did pay through essential consulting. So the issue became sort of like, what was Donald Trump's role? What did he know? And Hope Hicks makes it clear that he certainly knew

by 2018 that Michael Cohen had made these statements to him and that he was aware of the hush money payments. And also, it was noticeable what she's not saying. He didn't say, oh my God, I can't believe he paid. Isn't that awful? I wish I'd known about it. This was without my approval. In fact,

It was the opposite, which was, thank God he paid because it avoided this coming out before the election. So it continues with the motive, but it puts a key piece of knowledge in his head that she is testifying to directly. And that's

And that, I think, as you said, is so credible. I don't know that I would say that all of her testimony was totally credible. But from the state's point of view, she is a very reluctant witness to it's not like somebody who has a motive to curry favor with the state. She has every reason to be friendly to and not hurt Donald Trump. In fact, that's at the point she started crying after giving that testimony. So I thought she was just so critical at nailing down

The only open issue now with respect to the hush money payments is when Donald Trump learned of it. And that's going to fit in with the next witness we're going to talk about, Jeff McConaughey, which I think gives us more indirect evidence from which you can infer when Donald Trump would have really had to have known. Right. And just to go back to everything you were saying, I was finding it in the transcript because I think the words there are really important.

So Hope Hicks is talking about a conversation that she had with Mr. Trump the morning after Michael Cohen gave a statement to The New York Times saying that he had made the payment to Stormy Daniels without Mr. Trump's knowledge. Right. And so this is when and this is I'm just reading from the transcript. This is when she talks to Donald Trump.

President Trump was saying he spoke to Michael and that Michael had paid this woman to protect him from a false allegation and that, you know, Michael felt like it was his job to protect him. And that's what he was doing. And he did it out of the kindness of his own heart. He never told anybody about it, you know, and he was continuing to try to protect him up until the point where he felt he had to state what was true. This is what

Hope Hicks testified that Donald Trump told her. And Hope Hicks then is asked some questions about whether it would be out of character for Michael Cohen to spend his own money out of the goodness of his heart. And she answered, I did not know Michael to be an especially charitable person or selfless person. And then her concluding statements right before the end of direct examination. And this is something when you're a prosecutor, you sort of want to end on something powerful. And I think this was so

something powerful. The question was, did he, that's Mr. Trump, say anything about the timing of the news reporting? And she answered, yes.

yes, he wanted to know how it was playing and just my thoughts and opinion about the story versus having the story, a different kind of story before the campaign had Michael not made that payment. And I think Mr. Trump's opinion was it was better to be dealing with it now, now being after the election, and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election. That's a pretty powerful way to end. And that's what actually appears to have

caused her to break down into tears as the cross-examination was starting. So on this issue of Michael Cohen and she makes it clear she didn't believe what Donald Trump is telling her, a couple of points. One,

All of the defense attacks and, frankly, the state's attacks on Michael Cohen, actually, you can flip the script on that. All of the fact that he's a louse, to put it in the vernacular, actually is going to be part of the state's argument. He's not a paragon, and that is precisely why he wouldn't have done this. He has every interest in currying favor with his boss and not doing behind his boss's back, nor is he that kind of person.

So all of the descriptions by the defense about his character actually get to be flipped.

on their head. Second, the statement that he didn't tell anyone, I'd ask our listeners, remember that because we're going to talk about the Jeff McConaughey, Allen Weisselberg documents, exhibits 35 and 36, because we know that that statement that Michael Cohen didn't tell anyone is not true. Right. Not just that he told somebody in 2018, he told them at the time. And we have

actual written. This is like you don't have to take anyone's word for it.

That statement to Hope Hicks that he did not tell anyone, not true. We have documents on that that really can't be controverted. So the point you're making, which I think is a great one, which is like the defense is tough time here, right? Because they want to make Michael Cohen out as a louse and a liar on everything except this. This would be the point where he didn't lie, right? He was very particular about when he lied and when he didn't lie. Exactly. Yeah. So you kind of can't have both of that.

Mary, let's go back to your point, which I thought is so right, which is to talk about Melania. So I just first wanted to point out there's a difference between why you're doing something at the time and when the story breaks in 2018, being concerned about how your wife is going to take it. That doesn't mean why you pay the hush money is because when the story comes out, you're actually concerned then about, well, my wife might be angry.

Because just remember, he wasn't concerned about Melania in this story before the Access Hollywood tape came out. And we're going to have evidence that he was trying to not pay the money at all until after the election because then he wouldn't have to pay at all. That's key. And so it seems like basically it's like he's not concerned before Access Hollywood and he's not particularly concerned if he either wins or loses the election if he can avoid paying, which means he's not really concerned about Melania. Now, when the story breaks,

The fact that you would be concerned at that point is not really a defense. So I think, Mary, one thing that might be useful, and I know we've gotten a question or two on this, is what if Donald Trump was thinking 50 percent, this hypothetically, he was thinking about the campaign as to why hush money payments should be made to keep the story away from the electorate? And what if he was thinking 50 percent that he was worried about his wife?

I mean, you could tinker with the hypothetical. So it might be useful for people to understand the law. But before that, just, you know, we have a listener question that is directly on that.

If the jury concludes, unanimously concludes, that there were two independent motivations for Trump to pay off Stormy Daniels and cover it up, and the two being, one, to shield his wife and family from the information about her, however,

have many allegations by her, and the second to promote his presidential campaign and keep it free from another bad piece of information. If the jury concludes that either one of those would have been sufficient, that they were both true, is he still guilty of a felony of trying to age his campaign?

So, Mary, what's your understanding of how the judge is going to instruct the jury on this issue? And just, you know, this does come up under New York law because you'll have, for instance, we've talked a lot about this, that you can commit false business records with an intent to commit another crime. But what if your intent is to commit that other crime, but also to do it for personal reasons?

It's like the analogy under New York law is burglary versus trespass. If you just trespass into someone's home, but you're not intending to rob that home, then that's just simple trespass. But if you have an intent to commit another crime, it

It's a more serious offense. Which could be robbery. It could be a sexual offense. It could be multiple things. Destruction of property. Right. So what if you have multiple motives? That's what we're getting at. So what's your understanding of how the judge will instruct the jury on that? So we haven't seen jury instructions yet in this case, but generally in cases where

like burglary, like federal election crimes where there can be mixed motives, the jury is usually instructed that it, you know, the government doesn't have to prove that the intent, like just take this case, the intent to conceal some other crime was the sole purpose or the sole motive of the person. And he will probably instruct that people rarely have, you know, act with a single purpose in mind. Oftentimes there are mixed motives and mixed motives are okay,

The government just has to prove that one of the motives really was to commit this other crime and that he wouldn't have sort of not done the thing at all, but

except to commit the other crime that has to have been a driving force, even if it was not the sole driving force. So the upshot of all that is jurors don't have to think that Mr. Trump didn't care about whether his wife knew or not. They don't have to think the only thing he cared about was covering up election fraud or federal election campaign finance violations or tax fraud. They can think he wanted to cover that up. And you know what?

He really probably didn't want Melania to know about this either. That's OK. And there are nuances in, Mary, in what you're saying, which we'll get to when the judge does the instructions.

whether it has to be a significant purpose, whether it has to be what's called a but-for purpose. Now I really feel like people are super in the weeds on welcome to law school. But I think we're going to come back to that. But I think for this purpose, keeping it at a high nerdy level as opposed to the low nerdy level is important.

Mixed motives are fine. You don't get off because you happen to also be thinking about your wife. That's why when there were articles talking about, well, she said that he wanted to keep the newspapers from Melania, I was like, that is legally just... Of course he did, yeah. Yeah, of course. Any normal person would, but that's just not a legal defense here or a factual defense. So with that, let's take a break and come back and talk about Makani and the two exhibits that I love in this case. Yes, very important.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. I have an obligation to find a way of telling this story that is fresh, that has angles that haven't been used in the course of the day, to bring my experience working in the Senate, working in journalism, to try to make sense of what has happened and help you make sense of what it means to you. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, weeknights at 10 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.

Welcome back. Now, Andrew, I'm excited to dig into the testimony from yesterday, Monday's testimony, because this is when really for the first time we got into the business records, the fraudulent business records or alleged fraudulent business records. And we heard from two really important witnesses who had been one, a former Trump organization employee, one, a current Trump organization employee, and that is Jeff McConney and Devin

Deb Tarasoff. So Jeff McConney was a long time, something like 34 years at the Trump organization. He was the controller and at some point, I think, had an even higher level title. He worked directly with Alan Weisselberg, who, of course, was the chief financial officer. And Deb Tarasoff was the accounts payable person. And at least for a good part of her 24 years, there was like

the entire accounts payable department. I think she now supervises someone, so she's the accounts payable supervisor. But it again tells us sort of like how notwithstanding there being a lot of Trump organization entities, what a small sort of central office it was, you know, one accounts payable person. At any rate, their testimony was super important because remember here what the prosecutor has to prove is that these business records were produced and that they were fraudulent.

fraudulent. And so Mr. Makani did have to go through the entire process of who can approve an invoice. And of course, he said Donald Trump himself

But also, Weisselberg sometimes had authority if it was for less than a certain amount of money. If it was more than $10,000, which changed over time, but at the relevant time, $10,000. And when it was more than that, it would either have to be Donald Trump himself, Donald Trump Jr., or Eric Trump would have to approve invoices. He talked about how those invoices, when they were approved to be paid, would go to Deb Tarasoff to actually pay.

print a check. The check would then go with an invoice, she testified, stapled to it, to whoever was going to sign for it. And she made it very, very clear that the monies were coming after the first couple of payments from the Donald J. Trump revocable trust. Once Mr. Trump became the president, those payments were being made from his personal Trump account, and they had to actually mail, or probably UPS or some delivery service,

the checks and invoices down to the White House so that Mr. Trump could sign them. But every time she made it clear the invoice, right? And here we're talking about invoices coming from Mr. Trump every single month,

saying, you know, directed to Mr. Weisselberg that this is an invoice for legal services, $35,000. That would be stapled right there to the check for $35,000 that Mr. Trump signed. So super, super important in terms of just proving up the actual physical what had to happen for these records to be made. Oh, and I left out a part. When Deb would get the invoice, she would then, per the direction from Jeff McConney, make the note in the general ledger

that this was for legal expenses. She didn't question that. She didn't look behind that. She just did what she was told to do. So that's sort of the mechanics of it. And one thing also I want to say about the mechanics of it is if you were sitting in court or if you read the instructions,

This gets really boring because they have to go through this for every single check. They went through it with Jeff McConaughey for every single invoice and put the invoices up on the screen and what happened to them for every single month of 12 months. They did the same thing with Deb Tarasoff. But that's because it's the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every single count. And every count of the 34 counts in this indictment relates to one of those documents, the invoice, the voucher.

the check. And so unlike us on this podcast, where we can say, here, we'll read you one count, all the rest of them are just like that count. They can't do that. They have to actually go through every single one. But beyond that, that's- Yeah, we're not proving up each of our statements beyond a reasonable doubt. Exactly. Right, right. When we had Robert De Niro read the first count, we then said, okay, you don't need to read the other 33 counts. That would just be boring.

So that's the mechanics of sort of what they need to establish. But what was so important in addition to that, and that was critically important, was explaining what these payments were for. Because this is where Jeff McConaughey and this is where Exhibits 35 and 36 are so important, Andrew. And I know you're just barely can sit still because you want to talk about these. So we will put in our show notes links to Exhibits 35 and 36 so that people can see those.

The cover-up part of the case, after we've basically been dealing with sort of the election fraud scheme, the cover-up part is describing the reimbursements as legal fees, as opposed to having a bunch of paperwork saying, here's the money that I used to pay off the porn star. So it was disguised as legal fees, and to make it legal fees because those are income to the

the lawyer, Michael Cohen, he would have to pay taxes on it. So he has to be paid twice as much because he's in a 50% bracket. So to get paid $130,000 reimbursed for that, you have to get paid $260,000. And so that's the issue. Are they truly legal fees, in which case there's no crime, or are they, in fact, just reimbursements? Now, this is where there is so much evidence of the fraud that

that this is, these are not legal fees. Let's leave aside that Hope Hicks, going back to what she said, she has a conversation in 2018 with Donald Trump where he says, I know that Michael Cohen

Paid off. Paid these. Paid these and was. Paid off Stormy Daniels. That's what we're really good at. And was reimbursed. Donald Trump himself on various forms in, as we talked about last episode in this California civil case, in various tweets, he has said he reimbursed Michael Cohen for the hush money payments. So there's just up one side and down the other. There is Donald Trump saying, I reimbursed him for the $130,000.

So that's not legal fees. That's a reimbursement. And the other is if you're reimbursing somebody, and this came out over and over again in the Jeff McConney Direct, which was when you reimburse somebody, if you lay out $10, you get paid $10. It's ridiculous.

You don't get paid $20. And I think this is important, too, because you alluded to this, that this is income to Michael Cohen. So he needs to be he needs to pay for his tax liability there. But it also means that it generates from the Trump organization a tax document, a 1099 that they have to send out to Michael Cohen and that Jeff McConney testified about.

which again is a false tax document here because these were not, I mean, he was not an employee anymore from Trump Organization, Michael Cohen. He was now supposedly Trump's personal attorney, but that 1099 went as sort of a non-employee services. Yeah. So why are we both so like love as in our former prosecutor hat, which is like firmly put back on our head? Why do we love exhibits 35 and 36? Well, exhibit 35 says

and 36 contain handwritten notes. Jeff McConaughey describes in 36 his own handwritten notes based on a conversation with Allen Weisselberg. 35, he says, contains on the left-hand side, Allen Weisselberg's handwriting, which he says, I know because I've worked with him for 35 years. So that's his handwriting. They contain notes describing how the calculation was made

And so they say essentially 130 times two. That is not how you bill a legal record. I mean, like a legal fees. You don't lay out $130,000 for your client and then multiply it times two. It is, however, totally consistent with the idea of a reimbursement where you're going to pay taxes on the reimbursement if it's now being declared as legal.

legal fees. Just to clear things up, because the times two might be getting confusing to people because 130 times two would be 260. And that's not what the notes reveal, right? Because it apparently Cohen claimed at the same time that he was due reimbursement for some other services, which are noted on this. And we can talk about to the amount of 50,000. So that jumped the 130 to 180. And that's what they did the times two and then added a bonus. So just so that people don't get confused about

Yeah. And by the way, that 50, keep your eyes on that 50 because I think it's a sleeper. Not that this document's so devastating, but that other 50,000 was for a company called Redfinch. And it was, according to Michael Cohen, and we know this from openings, that's $50,000 which he paid to get a poll to be more favorable to Donald Trump. So again, both of these relate to campaign expenses that they wanted to keep off the

Right.

are being both together being described that way is part of it. It's not like the 50 was legitimate. Right, right, right. It is just as devious in terms of what it was about, where this was. Otherwise, they probably would have just reimbursed him 50 and not called it legal expenses and doubled it. Exactly. By the way, Alan Weisberg puts his notes on the bank statement that Michael Cohen uses to prove that he actually paid the 130 hush payment. It

It's not like a piece of paper that's scratch paper. Like if you're wondering, gee, I wonder if this is related to the hush money payment. It's on the freaking bank statement that shows the hush money payment. I mean, like, what is it? Just hanging around for a few months? Just, oh, wait, where's the scratch paper I have? Oh, wait, why didn't I just use the bank statement? Well, it makes a better record. But it has nothing to do with the hush money payment. It just was

was like that piece of paper just hopped out of my desk. I mean, it's just so preposterous. Of course, that's there to show that the payment had been made.

And that also is consistent with McCartney's testimony that when Allen Weisselberg provided this to him, we still haven't said everything on it. He was like for the files. Remember, the intent was to keep it for the files as a record. And just because listeners are not viewing what we're talking about when you say the bank statement, this is the bank statement. Remember where he opens. We heard from the banker about opening this account. The First Republic banker, Mr. Farrow.

That's right. Gary Farrow, right? It talks about beginning balance, zero total deposits, 131,000 total withdrawals, 130,035. And what does it say is paid? It's paid withdrawals and debits, domestic wire funds to Keith Davidson for 130,000. Oh, the $35? That was the wire transfer fee, right?

So total withdrawals, $130,035. Then handwritten under, so right now we're already like, oh, here we've got the corroboration that Michael Cohen opened this account. He put $131,000 in. He sent $130,000 to Keith Davidson. Then you have all the handwriting on it. We have Allen Weisselberg's handwritten notes

really telling for the files, as he tells Jeff McConaughey, what they're going to be making payments for. He takes the 180, right, which is the 130 plus the 50 for these tech services. And then he writes grossed up to 360, add annual bonus 60 equals 420. And then he specifically says that's 35,000 per month starting in 2017. So it's just right there. It's as plain as can be. Exhibit 36,

as Mr. McConaughey testified, was from his own meeting with Weisselberg when he was writing down notes describing how they were going to make these reimbursements to Michael Cohen, basically with all the same thing. We're going to start paying when he actually leaves the Trump Organization, effective January 27th, and then he lists them out. The bonus, but he got it wrong. He wrote 50. He says later, I got it wrong. It was supposed to be 60.

180 plus 180. And he even writes on there times two, four taxes, right? He writes times two, four taxes equals 420 divided by 12 is 35,000 a month.

So on cross-examination, Jeff McAnee was asked, well, did you have any direct conversations with Donald Trump about this? No, I didn't. So you don't know what essentially Donald Trump knew about this from your own personal knowledge. No, I didn't. On redirect examination, it's like, well, you frankly very often don't have conversations with Donald Trump. You just take your orders from Allen Weisberg. Yes, that's true. In other words, he just was doing his job. This is

that kind of thing. This is a summation document. It is as close to a smoking gun as you're going to get, even without it being something that was written by Donald Trump. As we talked about, it just is so impossible to believe that this would be going on without Donald Trump knowing. Really devastating. Let me just do, Mary, a little bit of what I used to do when I was in the U.S. Attorney's Office, which was like a little impromptu summation on how

how absurd it would be for Allen Weisselberg not to have told Donald Trump at the time what he was doing. So the defense wants to say this all was happening behind Donald Trump's back, that nobody told him this. To believe that

You would have to believe that somebody who worked for Donald Trump for years and years and years and years, who has been his chief financial officer and devoted to him for a really long time, would decide that it was in his best interest to not just approve $130,000 going to Michael Cohen,

which he would need to get approval for because it's way over 10,000. Over 10,000, yep. He would do that on his own. And not only would he approve that, he would double it to 260 and he would give him a bonus and he would do the other 50,000 and double that. And double that. And do all of that where the reaction is,

if Donald Trump found out that he had violated this rule and given away the store, which, and by the way, it's already been in the record that Donald Trump is a cheapskate. You know, he watches every penny and is a micromanager.

So he'd have no reason to do this at the risk of his job. Like, what's the benefit to him to do this? So there's no evidence that Weisselberg and Cohen were somehow in cahoots and were cooking up a scheme. And this was like some kickback scheme. There's nothing like that. But there's more. So he would be risking his job to do the scheme. The actual invoices and checks go to Donald Trump.

So what do you think the reaction would be? Like, I'm sorry, you want me to pay for what? And you approved what? And why are you doubling it? So there's none of that. And wait, wait, Mary, there's more. We know from Hope Hicks that he knows that there was a hush money payment and reimbursements. We know that Donald Trump says, I did reimburse for that.

What part of that story consists of, I cannot believe these people did it behind my back? Not to mention, month after month, Donald Trump just signs a check for $35,000 that says legal services without ever asking, what are these legal services for? Right. So the notorious cheapskate who watches every penny, which, by the way, David Pecker said he was really careful and frugal. By the way, the defense opened up.

on that saying he's really careful. Why would he pay so much money if he only had to pay 130? I mean, I don't know why Todd Blanche made that argument because that's actually a prosecution argument, not a defense argument. So the idea that this was something that he wouldn't know when he is signing the checks, that this was a scheme that they thought they would get away with

without telling him for over a year. And we know his reaction afterwards is, thank goodness we were doing this. And he sort of, according to Opix, is even fabricating his story. Because the other thing that these documents show, Exhibits 35 and 36, is the story from Donald Trump that Michael Cohen didn't tell anyone about these hush money payments is not true. Because that's what these documents show. There's nothing.

No way around it. To be clear, they show he told Weisselberg at a minimum, right? At a minimum, exactly. These alone don't prove he told Trump, but everything else you just said, plus all the evidence we've heard from David Pecker and that we have yet to hear from Michael Cohen, you know, corroborates that. And to your point about signing the checks month after month, one of the things Deb Tarasoff said is like,

Sometimes he'd send something back and say, no, I'm not signing this. He'd write void on it. Remember, she said she stapled the invoice to every check for him to sign. And these invoices, every one of them were from Michael Cohen to Allen Weisselberg for these legal services rendered or the retainer for legal services. And he signed them all with no questions asked. So really important testimony from these folks. The other thing is the invoice is a small point.

say that it's for ongoing work during that time period. Right. So they're really couching it as this is for the work that was done during the time period of the invoice. There's nothing in it to suggest, oh, we're just calling the hush money payment legal fees because that's not how it's described. It's described as ongoing work. And that is over and over again sent to Donald Trump and it is signed. So

This is all without even getting to Michael Cohen's own testimony about this, but it just tells you how corroborated the Michael Cohen story is. And maybe a final point, Mary, is, you know, Michael Cohen is the person who sort of blew the lid on all of this and sort of revealed this is what's going on. And he famously testified before Congress and was asked about this whole thing and talked about the doubling of the 130 and how the scheme worked. He could not have known at that time

Like Jeff McConaughey was taking notes of a conversation with Allen Weisberg and would have, as Jeff McConaughey called it, chicken scratchings. There's the exhibit 35 and 36. So it is such strong evidence that there's this independent corroboration from two witnesses who are not aligned with Michael Cohen as to what Michael Cohen was saying. Okay, Mary, let's take a break, come back, and we'll talk about what else is going on.

As Democrats unite around Vice President Harris, they'll gather in Chicago to endorse their presidential ticket. A new era is here. It is go time. Stay with MSNBC for insights and analysis. The race is going to be close. Everybody should prepare themselves for that. Plus reporting on the ground from the convention hall. Extraordinary levels of enthusiasm from Democrats for the fight ahead. The Democratic National Convention. Special coverage this week on MSNBC.

A U.S. Senator destroyed by blackmail. He was not bound by the truth or by facts. The country's most outrageous political demagogue ascending toward the peak of American power. Millions upon millions of devoted followers. This is a story of heroes willing to face down tyranny and the risk to the country if they fail. Rachel Maddow presents Ultra, season two of the chart-topping original podcast. All episodes available now.

On the MSNBC podcast, How to Win 2024, former Senator Claire McCaskill is joined by fellow political experts and insiders to examine the campaign strategies unfolding in this all-important election. We have emerged with the teacher, the coach, the veteran, the governor, Tim Walz. I always think it's better to have somebody on the ticket that has actually won in a state that's hard. Search for How to Win 2024 wherever you get your podcasts and follow. New episodes every Thursday.

Welcome back. So let's just briefly talk about the gag order findings, what wasn't found, and then turn to Florida. So the day started yesterday with Judge Mershon issuing his decision for alleged gag order violations. He found one, the one that we all anticipated, which was respect to the conversations about the jury, and said that was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He said he couldn't find the others beyond a reasonable doubt for various reasons.

But the main thing that he did is he looked directly at Donald Trump and orally told him, I really do not want to put you in jail. There are all sorts of ramifications for putting in jail somebody who is the former president who could possibly be the future president. And then all of the mechanics of it. I don't want to disrupt the trial. He said there's lots and lots of reasons against doing this, but I'm

I have a job to do and I have a job to protect the integrity of the judicial system and this process. And you need to know, and I am putting you on notice now, that if you violate again, if appropriate, jail essentially is the next step. That's me paraphrasing. He obviously isn't going to say that is what I'm going to do because he obviously wants to hear the facts and wants to hear from the defense.

But that was about as clear a warning as you could imagine. And, you know, there is some reason to think it is working. And there's Donald Trump is curtailing some of his speech. It'll be interesting because I think he gets that there is a significant chance that at least for some period of time, even if he's just stepped back into the holding pens of the court, because that's where prisoners are kept while they're awaiting court appearances. So he wouldn't actually be going to the

prison building. He could be kept in the lockup of the criminal courthouse. But that is something that you can see Judge Merchant was explicit. He said, fines are not working. I mean, he came right out and said that, not working. So he made sort of a number of findings in the record that are pretty ominous for Donald Trump. Do you have any thoughts on that or any other ways he thought about what he did? No.

No, I mean, I think he had basically foreshadowed that he was going to say something like that this time around. He said he didn't want to do it, but it just didn't, the fines were not sufficient or had not appeared to be sufficient. I mean, I think there's other options, as we talked a little bit about. One possible option would be like home detention, which wouldn't be like a muzzle on him, but it would mean he couldn't be out doing campaign rallies.

Another option is he, you know, imposes incarceration but stays, you know, the actual enforcement of it. Mr. Trump actually, you know, being stepped back. That's our terminology, step back into the holding cell until the end of the trial or some further date and potentially says, look, if you behave yourself, I'll reconsider this sentence. I mean, there's various options. And we'll also have to see what

The prosecution does, because remember, the prosecution hadn't even asked for jail time this time around. So we'll see if there is another statement that they believe is contemptuous. Will the prosecution ask for it or will they ask for something else?

My guess is, you know, folks are talking already with Secret Service about how would this work if it were to happen. And I think we'll see. But I do think it is having some impact. And I think he will stay away from commenting about jurors, at least, because that's, I think, one of the things that Judge Marchand is the most concerned about. Let's put it in New York terms. It's a third rail. Yeah, and it should be. So, Mary, because I'm too triggered by Judge Cannon, let

let me turn it over to you to talk about Florida, which, you know, I think is a lost cause in terms of it getting to trial before the election, even though it easily could have. But just briefly tell us what did Judge Cannon do? So first,

I want to start with what Trump's attorneys and others' attorneys have done. But yes, let's remember, there is no trial date set in that case. There's never been a trial date set except the original one in May that was, you know, taken off the table a long time ago. And even though the judge had a hearing on March the 1st, ostensibly to set a new trial date, no new trial date has been set.

However, there was a date this week that was supposed to be the date of a SEPA filing. That's the Classified Informations Procedures Act, where the defense has to basically tell the court and the government what, if any, classified information the defense wants to use in its case in defense against the charges.

Mr. Nauta came in asking for an extension of time to file that. And in response to his motion, for all kinds of reasons that look a lot like delay, delay, delay, the government on Friday filed a response to that saying that he doesn't need any more time and revealing one of the reasons Nauta had asked for more time is he was claiming that when he went to examine the documents in boxes, that everything wasn't in the exact same place as

It had been when the boxes were first obtained pursuant to the search warrant of Mar-a-Lago. The government revealed in its filing, here's the procedures we went through when a filter team went into Mar-a-Lago. Filter team, remember, to make sure that the prosecutors wouldn't see anything that was attorney-client privilege. And they filtered out certain things and they put placeholders in boxes. They marked every box. They marked every document that was in every box.

Maybe every document in every box is not in the same order it was in when we first did the search. Some things were on small little pieces of paper. Some things were on big pieces of paper. There were various things in boxes. The boxes weren't full. And it's possible, even though we have good records about what was in each box, it's possible that the order of how things were in each box is different.

is not the same. And the government says that shouldn't make a darn bit of difference to Mr. Nauda because Mr. Nauda isn't even charged with any mishandling of classified information. So he certainly doesn't need any extra time. But Mr. Trump's attorneys pounced on it and said, oh, my goodness, now we have new information of discovery violations and spoliation, which is a fancy legal word for maybe you destroyed documents, maybe you tampered with evidence, et cetera. And so now not only do we need to have a stay of this spoliation,

SEPA filing that was due May the 9th, because how do we know now what we're going to want to get into evidence from those boxes? Because they're all out of order. So we need a stay of that. And we're going to be filing lots and lots of motions now for all the things that the government did wrong. What Judge Cannon did late last night and said, I'm temporarily staying this filing deadline of May 9th. She didn't say I'm setting it off for like

two months, but she wants to be able to, I guess, hear back from the government in response to Mr. Trump's motion before she rules on when the SEPA Section 5 will be due. And so it's a temporary stay. Yes, does this mean it's all the more unlikely that this case goes to trial before November? Yeah, probably. But I didn't think it was a high likelihood of it going before November anyway. So I could say,

Minimal impact on that. I mean, there's just still a lot to be done in terms of these SIPA proceedings and the way that she takes a lot of time. There's also a lot of other pending motions and things like that. Yeah. So this is like another data point for why this case is not going to go to trial before the election is if we needed more data points. But OK, I'm breathing. I'm breathing.

It's frustrating. It's frustrating. Yep. And we could go on and on about these boxes, but we won't because we are at the end of our episode. By the way, you could tell that we're both trial lawyers because, you know, getting into the weeds, you know, this is like what we do is think about cases and proof. And one thing I'm going to give a final point, which is I think it's sort of clear from the way we talk about it. Just so you know, sort of what's in my head. And I'm pretty sure, Mary, because you're an appellate lawyer and a trial lawyer is

I always am thinking about the closing. And in fact, when you're putting a case together, you're supposed to really have thought about your closing and you structure the entire case from opening and all of the witnesses in terms of the closing, what you need for the closing, what arguments you're going to make. And so when I hear these witnesses, I'm thinking about what pieces of hard proof does it give me, but also how is it going to fit into the arguments at closing?

And it's all sort of working backwards from that. And so that's why, you know, when I did this mini summation, that's sort of because I'm thinking about, okay, how is this going to be used and thinking backwards from that? And I just think as a sort of practice point for our nerdy, I think we're going from law school to sort of like a practicum. Yeah. That is very much the way I like think about as I'm hearing evidence is how is this going to play out? Yep. A hundred percent. Okay, Mary.

I think it's time to wrap. I think it's time to wrap. Yep. Next time we talk to everyone, we will be able to talk about Stormy Daniels' testimony. So there we go. Absolutely. Okay. I'll see you Friday. See you Friday.

As the trial continues in New York, Mary and I will bring you new episodes twice a week to keep you up to speed. And we want to answer your questions as we did today. We answered a really great question. So please send us any questions. You can leave us a voicemail at 917-342-2934. Or you can email us at prosecutingtrumpquestions at NBCUNI.com. Thanks so much for listening. We'll have another episode for you this Friday.

So this show is produced by Vicki Virgulina, our associate producer is Jamaris Perez. Our head of audio production is Bryson Barnes. Ayesha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio. And Rebecca Cutler is the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. Search for Prosecuting Donald Trump wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.

Always Nightpads are designed for a perfect night's sleep. Made with rapid-dry technology for fast absorbency and up to 10 hours of protection, Always Nightpads lets you do your sleep thing. So go ahead, bear hug a pillow, roll around in your favorite white sheets, curl up or starfish out. Whatever your sleep thing...

Always Nightpads will do their up to 100% leak protection thing. Shop for Always in-store or online, wherever you get your pads.