officials that we're going to see her more on the campaign trail, but she's been absent. we know that jared kushner and ivanka trump have kept their distance from this campaign, that doesn't mean they don't support donald trump, but they are trying to kind of live their own lives. you saw eric trump did actually come to court, lara trump is running the rnc right now, co-running the rnc right now. might be best for her to stay away from the trial and raise money for him in terms of time and i don't have a good answer on donald trump jr. but there are a lot of family members and we have only seen eric trump in court. >> on one day that we have been able to at least spot him. thank you so much, jonathan alan. you have such great reporting online and on air, and i appreciate it. that's going to do it for us today. have a great weekend. i hope you'll comeback on monday, i'll be here, same time, same place. you can catch our show around the clock on youtube and on other platforms. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage right now.

good morning. it is 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm jose diaz-balart. right now, the jury is in recess and former president trump's new york hush money trial. it comes after testimony resumed earlier this morning when jurors did leave for recess, they were hearing from georgia longstreet, a paralegal who works on the manhattan district attorney's office. her testimony coming after jurors heard more from a forensics data expert, with the manhattan district attorney's office, who inspected text messages, recordings, secret recordings and other data from phones owned by former trump attorney michael cohen. with us to talk about all of this, msnbc national correspondent yasmin vossoughian, outside the courthouse in manhattan, danny cevallos, criminal defense attorney and msnbc legal analyst, phyllis cote, senior judge and clinical professor of law and director of the externship and pro bono program.

what has been happening inside the courtroom? this break is probably for a short period of time. >> reporter: a bit of a break this morning. on the stand right now as you mentioned georgia longstreet, a paralegal at the manhattan d.a.'s office. i think it is significant to talk about this, jose, because i think we need to understand kind of how document heavy this entire case and the prosecution is, right? we know the defense is continuously chipping away at some potential witnesses here, the potential of michael cohen to take the stand, the potential of stormy daniels to take the stand. we can't count how many times michael cohen has been talked about so far and hasn't taken the stand. their objective is to chip away at michael cohen's credibility, to chip away at stormy daniels' credibility as well. one reason why they're relying so heavily on text message exchanges, social media posts, things posted on twitter, back in 2016, through 2020, things that were posted on truth social by the former president after he

was taken off twitter, email exchanges as well, so we heard from douglas daus, the forensic expert earlier on today, and cross examination, as well as redirect, and now we're hearing from georgia longstreet, this paralegal from the manhattan d.a.'s office. she talks about how she's combed through 5,000 to 10,000, god bless her, social media posts, having saved a total of 1500 or so. i think one of the reasons why this is so incredibly important, jose, is some of the social media posts that are going to be likely be admitted by evidence as evidence by the manhattan d.a.'s office will stem from a date back in may of 2018. let me read some of these social media posts by the former president, from that day. with regards to stormy daniels, also known as stephanie clifford. in which the former president writes this. mr. cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign, having nothing to do with the campaign from which he entered in through reimbursement

a private contract between two parties known as a nondisclosure agreement or nda. these agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth, and in this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in arbitration for damages against miss clifford, he puts daniels in present these. it was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair, despite already having signed a detailed letter saying there was no affair. this was a private agreement, money from the campaign paid no role in this transaction. this evidence is integral to this case, will likely be admitted, maybe admitted through this paralegal testimony. we'll have to wait and see if that comes up. it speaks to how important it is in the way in which they were able to gather this evidence, jose, to gather these text messages, to gather these

emails, to gather these tweets and truth social posts, and admitting them as evidence so the jury can understand the play by play, the abcs, the behind the scenes of how the manhattan d.a.'s office really built this case. >> as of right this second, merchan is speaking with the -- all of the attorneys involved and talking about what may or may not be accepted and introduced as evidence. but, danny, so let's go to georgia longstreet. a paralegal. what is the prosecution's building block about her? >> yeah, this witness is in the category of not flashy, you never heard of her, but important in the sense that she authenticates documents. and she's going to testify that she conducted this search of all these social media postings. you probably won't see a lot of cross examination, but what i think you would see is maybe get her to elicit that she is an

employee of the d.a.'s office and therefore may be biased or raise the inference of bias and also maybe cast doubt on her search process. maybe the reliability of the way back machine, to cast more further doubt through cross examination as to the authenticity of the documents. it would be consistent with the defense's strategy so far of challenging everything. which on the one hand makes the trial longer and is arguably unnecessary, but you never really know what jurors are going to seize on and maybe they'll get back in the jury room and say i don't know, but on the whole, this is a witness that shouldn't lead to any dramatic testimony. i said this before, sometimes some of the most important witnesses are quick and seemingly unexciting, but they lay critical foundations and authenticate critical documents. that's what this witness may be

here. >> interesting because, yasmin, the back and forth right now in the courtroom, between blanche and merchan and mangold, includes, for the first time, at least that we have seen, the former president get more involved in what the -- his attorney is doing and saying. >> reporter: right. so, it is the first time we're being told by adam reese, one of our producers inside the courtroom, who has been kind of providing us so much of this color and some of this -- so much of the documentation that we have been following throughout this entire trial, talk about how the former president is writing on a post it note handing it over to blanche and back and forth about what evidence can actually be submitted. they started off by talking about evidence that could and could not be admitted. blanche has been honing in on whether they could admit the "access hollywood" tapes. judge merchan already ruled on that. it is a no go. they can enter the transcript,

they can't play the tape. merchan saying i already decided on that, the transcript can be admitted. and another piece of evidence that they're going back and forth on is this "washington post" piece that was published in which there was a photo of billy bush, the former president as well, along with a woman featured in that "access hollywood" tape. it seems like at this point, mangold, one of the attorneys for the people said we're offering to withdraw a request to submit this evidence. so this is kind of what is happening right now, amidst this recess in which the jury has taken a bit of a break of going back and forth, about which evidence can be admitted. part of the argument from the defense's point of view is much of this evidence is prejudicial to the former president, hence one of the reasons why they don't want it admitted into this trial, jose. >> yeah, phyllis, this is so,

you know, yesterday we were talking about how granular things are, right? phyllis, right now merchan is saying yes to twitter post and truth social posts can come in as admissions and yasmin was telling us about the photo that the prosecution says they're willing to pull back on. how do you see things going so far? >> i think they're going well in terms of the judge and the jury management or management of the evidence and testimony that is coming in. the judge really has to thread this needle in the probative value versus the prejudicial. in fact, there may be testimony and evidence that comes in. and i think what we're seeing right now is we talk about this probative value versus the prejudicial effect. >> what does that mean? >> it means does it hurt more than it helps the case? and if it hurts more, then it can't come in. it becomes a feature and becomes evidence that is not relevant or evidence that should not be allowed in because the prejudicial effect or the bad

effect of this is so high. it is one of the things that we saw kind of happen with other trials where evidence becomes a feature that is not really what the trial is about, and the appellate courts look at that and say, wait a minute, this was not what this trial is about. >> we saw what happened with weinstein. >> weinstein is a very great example of seeing it right now, taking place firsthand. so the judge really has to make sure, yes, the evidence is relevant, yes, the evidence should come in, but does that probative effect, the effect of showing whatever legal thing we want to do is outweighed by this prejudicial -- >> so right now, longstreet is back on the stand and the jury is coming in. yasmin, what can we expect going forward? >> reporter: so we're going to expect more from longstreet here, from georia longstreet. there will be a cross examination as well. it is important to note here, as i noted earlier on today, with

douglas daus, which is some of the times with more of these kind of quote, unquote expert witnesses and longstreet isn't necessarily an expert witness, she is a paralegal at the manhattan d.a.'s office, we didn't expect cross examination with douglas daus, none theless there was cross examination and redirect as well and that speaks to the defense's strategy here, chipping away at the credibility of how it is they came upon this information and more of the credibility of people like and we said this over and over again, we cannot say it enough, i should say, michael cohen, and so i think the question will be whether or not there will be a cross examination of georgia longstreet. i'm going to go on the assumption there will be a cross examination, even if it is a short one. and then we'll see what happens from there, jose, as to whether or not who is going to take the stand next after that. >> yeah, i want to bring in robert ray who represented donald trump during his first impeachment. robert, what do you see as going

on today, and the assistance to bring in a paralegal to talk about what was and not, for example, her job of combing through social media, throughout an entire day, days becoming weeks, weeks becoming years. >> there is a lot of obviously pretrial skirmishing going on this morning. and, you know, again, with regard to what is admissible and what isn't admissible, the test is there may be some probative value to whatever posts the d.a.'s office will attempt to introduce. but, you know, the defense here is laying a record in the event of a conviction, that the admissibility of that evidence is collateral and that it -- the danger of unfair prejudice, the standard, outweighs its probative value and that's always a difficult question to weigh.

it is an issue generally reserved to the discretion of the trial judge. but it is certainly reviewable on appeal for abuse of that discretion, and appellate courts pay very, very close attention as recent experiences found, with regard to the admissibility of that evidence, precisely because generally speaking prosecutors get into trouble about introducing evidence of low probative value, where the argument can be made on appeal it was unfairly prejudicial. so i think that's kind of the lay of the land for what sounds like this morning. and then as far as the d.a.'s office introducing that evidence, i think, you know, it will be i think more ideal for the prosecution to be admitting that through a third party, even if it was an expert or some vendor outside the district attorney's office. the danger of using the d.a.'s office and a paralegal is that the d.a.'s office has a vested interest in the outcome of the case, they're trying to secure a conviction. so, you know, those are the kinds of things that run through my mind as i think about how the

prosecution is presenting its case. >> interesting. phyllis, trump has been saying that he may not testify in his own defense because of the gag order imposed by the judge. the judge reaffirmed today that trump has the absolute right to testify. what do you make of this? >> well, it is critical. it is critical that the judge makes sure that the truth is known, that being that a defendant has an absolute right to decide whether to testify or not. and that cannot be inhibited in any way. and even though he may make that decision in consultation with his attorneys, it is the decision of the defendant in a criminal trial. >> if the defendant does decide to testify, it opens up a series of questioning lines that maybe the prosecution would not have access to if it weren't that the witness decides to testify. >> absolutely. absolutely. that decision by the defendant to testify or not testify is so critical because it opens them up to an array of questions that

will not be limited in the way that we have seen the judge limit, like the "access hollywood" tape, those kind of limitations may or may not still be in effect after a decision to testify. >> there are a whole series of tapes and quotes that are right now being accepted and seen by the jury, including an apology by donald trump back then, saying i said it, i was wrong and i apologize, we're living in the real world. danny, last week -- last week or the week before, i kind of lose track of things, you were saying that you felt there is a good shot at donald trump testifying during this trial. you still stick with that? >> yeah, i'm just betting the underdog. i still think that if you add up all the risk, most of the time the reason criminal defendants don't testify is that the

perceived risk is too great. but what you see in a lot of high profile cases in the last few years is defendants are taking the stand. sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. sometimes it has nothing to do with the testimony, sometimes the facts are just so bad that there is nothing that can overcome it. that's why it is often considered a last ditch effort. that being said, ultimately, i still think there is a chance donald trump will testify. he has an absolute right to testify. and he believes he's the smartest guy in the room, though in the last 24 hours, him repurposing his supposed misunderstanding of the gag order to mean he couldn't testify or that it restricted his ability to testify may be are, i might be reconsidering my bet and he's setting himself up for having an excuse to have not testified. >> everyone, stay with us, if you would. we're just back in 60 seconds as we continue to monitor what's going on in that courtroom testimony, back and forth. plus, one name already mentioned

several times during testimony, hope hicks. what she could reveal about what she saw as a close member of trump's inner circle. and we have breaking news, our sources are telling us the department of justice is expected to announce an indictment against texas democratic congressman henry cuellar. details next. congressman henry cuellar. details next you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" omsn nbc. i have active psoriatic arthritis. but with skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, count me in. along with clearer skin, skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. there's nothing like clearer skin and better movement. and that means everything! ask your doctor about skyrizi today. learn how abbvie could help you save.

17 past the hour. breaking news. nbc has learned that the department of justice is expected to announce an indictment against long-term democratic congressman henry cuellar of texas today. let's get right to ryan nobles with that story. ryan, what do we know? >> well, jose, we're expecting the indictment against congressman cuellar to be unsealed at some point today, according to sources familiar with the investigation. and right now the department of justice is not commenting on the investigation or possible

indictment. but what we do know is that cuellar has long been at the center of a lengthy investigation by department of justice officials. his home was raided several years ago, by fbi officers at the time, the investigation at that particular period of time involved his connection to the azerbaijan government and there was some question of political corruption connected to that government. he serves on a powerful committee connected to that government. and at that time, it was thought that that's what the fbi was investigating. now, we don't know quite yet what the contents of this indictment will reveal, when they are revealed later this afternoon. but there is the possibility that it is connected to that initial raid. cuellar is a very powerful democrat, jose. he's a member of the appropriations committee. he is a moderate democrat, who obviously represents laredo, texas, on the border of mexico, he's been a democrat that has

broken with much of his party, favoring much stronger border policies than many of his democratic colleagues. he also happens to be one of the last remaining pro life democrats still serving in the united states congress. he has fended off a political challenges despite his legal issues time after time, including winning a primary a couple of years ago by less than 300 votes from a progressive challenger. and then going on to win his general election despite the fact that it was well known that he was a subject of this investigation. now, cuellar and his office have yet to respond to this news that the indictment could be handed down as any moment, but in the past, he has said he's done nothing wrong and he's denied any of the charges against him. it is also worth pointing out his lawyer at the time of the initial raid shortly after that raid had told reporters that he was under the assumption based on his conversations with the fbi that the investigation into cuellar was done, and that cuellar was no longer facing any sort of legal trouble. that's obviously not the case.

also the possibility that perhaps this indictment could be related to something completely separate from what happened during that raid from a couple of years ago. so, there is still a lot that we're learning about this situation, jose, this creates a very difficult political situation for house democrats who are hoping to retake the majority in 2024. cuellar's district is a swing district, one that republicans certainly have in their sites and now given the fact that he's facing this legal trouble that could complicate that situation, especially because cuellar is already the democratic nominee. they would not be able to replace him on the ballot unless he stepped down on his own. we're reaching out to democratic leader as well to see if they have any thoughts on cuellar's future and whether or not cuellar has any intention of stepping down or at least stepping down from the powerful committees that he sits on in the house democratic caucus. he also serves in a leadership post in the house democratic caucus as well. this is a developing story that we're just now starting to scratch the surface on, but

that's the latest as to what we have right now. >> ryan nobles in washington, thank you very much. we're back after a short break with more from the witness stand and trump's hush money trial and a whole lot more. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. me you're watching "jose diaz-balart report os"n msnbc. power e*trade's easy to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley

when anyone in this house wears white, it doesn't stay white for long. white? to art class? that's risky. art has no rules, mom. huh. white with coffee? a dangerous endeavor. white? to soccer? i'm not gonna slide tackle. he's gonna slide tackle. but now with tide oxi white, we can clean our white clothes without using bleach. it even works on colors. i slide tackled. i see that. keep your whites white even without bleach with tide oxi white. we got this. (♪♪ ) why did i keep missing out on this? before you were preventing migraine with qulipta? do you remember the pain, the worry, the canceled plans? and look at me now. you'll never truly forget migraine but qulipta reduces attacks making zero-migraine days possible. it's the only pill of its kind that blocks cgrp and is approved to prevent migraine of any frequency. to help give you that forget you get migraine feeling. don't take if allergic to qulipta. most common side effects are nausea, constipation and sleepiness. learn how abbvie could help you save. qulipta, the forget-you-get migraine medicine.

you've got xfinity wifi at home. qulipta, the take it on the go with xfinity mobile. customers now get exclusive access to wifi speed up to a gig in millions of locations. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free. that's like getting two unlimited lines for twenty dollars a month each for a year.

so, ditch the other guys and switch today. buy one line of unlimited, get one free for a year with xfinity mobile! plus, save even more and get an eligible 5g phone on us! visit xfinitymobile.com today. from chavez and huerta to striking janitors in the 90s to today's fast-food workers. californians have led the way. now, $20/hour is here. thanks to governor newsom and leaders in sacramento, we can lift workers

out of poverty. stop the race to the bottom in the fast-food industry. and build a california for all of us. thank you governor and our california lawmakers for fighting for what matters. 26 past the hour. we go right into the courthouse in manhattan, we understand that hope hicks, one of the key

allies of president trump during his administration has now been called to the stand. there is a bench meeting right now, right after prosecution announced that they were calling hope hicks to the stand. joining us now, nbc's vaughn hillyard from outside the courthouse. nbc washington correspondent yamiche alcindor and carol lenning, msnbc contributor. so, vaughn, this is a big name that a lot of people have been looking forward to see what she says. she certainly had access to a lot that went on right before november and afterwards. >> just literally 120 seconds ago, hope hicks entered this courtroom here, called to the stand. she has not spoken a word yet, but this is for the first time hope hicks going before her former boss, to testify directly about the events that unfolded from 2015 all the way through

2018 when she first left the white house. this, for hope hicks, is a major moment. she had previously spoken with congressional investigators back in 2019 about some of the specifics of the case. but when it came to the events that happened within the white house, she had repeatedly said at the time that under white house counsel she was not able to ask -- answer specific questions here. when it turns to hope hicks, we should expect prosecutors to ask her, of course, about that august 2015 meeting at trump tower in which david pecker testified that she was in and out of the meeting, where the alleged catch and kill scheme was hatched with pecker, michael cohen and donald trump. we should expect also her to be asked about the october 8th phone call in which she connected donald trump and michael cohen to one another based off of phone records there. this is a day after the "access hollywood" tape was released. we should expect her to be asked about the october 28th phone call she had with michael cohen,

october 28th, the day in which it was finalized, the wire transfer of $130,000 to donald trump. we can also anticipate her being asked by prosecutors about 2017, in the white house, when she was working on the team about the extent to which she was aware of michael cohen and donald trump's arrangement, alleged arrangement to reimburse michael cohen with the litany of checks throughout the year. and, of course, in 2018 david pecker testified just this last week that there was a phone call that he had with sarah huckabee sanders, who was the white house press secretary at the time, along with hope hicks, who had just left the white house there in march of 2018, when karen mcdougal did an interview with anderson cooper, and it was in the aftermath of that that the three of them allegedly had a phone call in which they discussed how to prolong a contract agreement to keep karen mcdougal from further speaking out. there is a long list of questions that the prosecution has for hope hicks.

of course, it is their decision to bring her to the stand and she is now here in lower manhattan, about to answer those questions. jose? >> and, carol, the post reports that trump has not seen hicks or spoken to her since 2022. he's apparently been chatting with his defense attorney ahead of hicks' arrival in the courtroom. she's now on the stand. carol, different in so many ways to what all of the other witnesses that the prosecution has brought forth so far pause we don't really know what agreement she may or may not have with the prosecution. for example, we know that pecker had an agreement, we know that michael cohen has had discussions with the prosecution. what do we know about her standing here? >> we don't know everything that she agreed to or didn't agree to. but what she's telegraphing through her friends, to "the washington post," and really good story written by my colleague ashley parker today,

what she is telegraphing is that she's not excited to be here, she feels forced, obviously she is required to appear and to testify truthfully and every time hope hicks has been forced to do that in the past, it has led to a further sort of brittle fracture with her former boss donald trump, who doesn't really like it when people tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. their relationship sort of fractured in the latter part of 2022, when hope hicks was requested and subpoenaed by congressional investigators to explain what happened when she was by donald trump's side on january 6th. and her frustration that she tried to communicate to him that he had not won the election prior to those days, and that fraud had not been widespread enough to change the direction, and that she told him very clearly that his legacy was in danger as a result of him not

acting to do anything on january 6th to stop the storming of the capitol and his supporters that were there. so, it is a problematic situation for hope hicks, she has warmth and affection for her former boss, but they haven't talked in a long while because of that testimony, and this testimony she is, again, telegraphing through it, appears, her friends and colleagues she's not thrilled to be here either. but she is by his side in every critical moment, actually, jose, and she is different than most witnesses because she can tell people what donald trump said and what he felt and what he believed if she is asked those questions. especially in october of 2016, which is when the president or then candidate actually was very worried about these eruptions of negative stories about his relationships with women coming out.

the "access hollywood" tape was just released and hope hicks was contacted by the post at the time to ask for donald trump's comment, what happened. she was there on the ground floor when donald trump and his campaign were dealing with how do we stop future stories like this from coming out. >> really fascinating. i want to bring back danny cevallos, danny, one of the things we're seeing here from our producers inside the courthouse is that the first line of questioning is -- talk about your educational background, and hicks' first words were i'm really nervous and then goes into the bio, the curriculum vitae of what her background is. what kind of witness is hope hicks and so different from all of the other witnesses, the other eight witnesses that the prosecution has brought forth so

far? >> i'm betting hope hicks is a good witness for the prosecution, a strong witness because, number one, they're calling her, but, number two, we already know she doesn't have the same credibility and morality issues as some of these other witnesses, whether that be keith davidson, michael cohen, or even david pecker. she may be a very effective witness because she is someone who was just an observer, david pecker said as to one of the meetings, hope hicks was in and out and maybe that's david picker's memory, but what you find is that that administrative person who is in and out is listening when very important people are meeting about very important things, they probably hear more than you expect them to or that david pecker may have expected hope hicks heard. so we know she has good information for the prosecution, otherwise she wouldn't be here on direct examination right now. and i think we're going to be surprised by some of her information, simply because i don't think she was as willing to reveal it as say some of the other witnesses in this case

whether that be michael cohen or stormy daniels. michael cohen's story we pretty much already heard, almost everything he's going to testify to, i imagine. hope hicks, i don't think we have. she doesn't want to be there. and so she doesn't have the same credibility challenges, so i expect she's going to be a solid witness for the prosecution. >> solid witness for the prosecution. and how is it looking, just outside the courthouse, vaughn, when you're seeing what exactly is happening inside? >> reporter: right, hope hicks is somebody here, when we talk about donald trump's orbit over the last decade, politically, we have watched so many advisers and aides meet his scorn, the throne from the outside be repudiated by the former president, but in turn also make clear to the public at large the threat they believe that donald trump is, politically and also

existentially to the country. hope hicks is not one of those people. hope hicks is somebody who has not done a public interview, she left the white house in 2018, and after meeting with congressional investigators who were investigating potential russia links to the trump campaign. and they did does her as part of the testimony about the stormy daniels and karen mcdougal arrangements and it was acknowledged by hope hicks during that testimony that she would sometimes tell white lies in short order after it was made clear she had talked to congressional investigators, she left the white house, she did, as carol outlined, returned in late 2020 to join the white house again here. she is somebody who she hasn't talked to trump since the summer of 2022, she is somebody, though, who has not ever, you know, received attacks from

donald trump on the social media account or anything. somebody who is a close confidante. in 2015, 2016, i was on the campaign trail and hope hicks with corey lewandowski and keith schiller was part of a small group of individuals who had the trust of donald trump and campaigned on the road with him, he had a small operation. and so eight years, nine years later, here, to have this moment come down to her testifying in front of her former boss, who our team inside is characterizing as not smiling, but watching intently to the beginning statements from her testimony, it is really a remarkable turn from where we were one decade ago. >> i mean, yamiche, give us a little bit bigger perspective on how important hope hicks was to trump's campaign and then in the white house. >> she was very important. because she was in all of these meetings and was really someone who donald trump looked at as a

confidante, as an adviser, someone he liked to have around. in the campaign, she was working for the trump organization, she joked, an ashley parker story in "the washington post," she joked when shes with a brought on to the campaign, she thought it was a marketing campaign because she didn't realize the former president was going to be running for office. it is interesting you think about where she was, having covered the trump white house and the campaign, she was around the president, constantly, someone he wanted to call on, be in meetings with. as we think about the larger picture here and what she may say on the stand, back to the january 6th committee and think about how clear and how forth coming she was then. even for someone who was close to donald trump she was open about the fact she was not just telling him you lost the election, but also was texting people, those text messages are part of the reason why she and donald trump have a little bit of a colder relationship now because she was texting people

saying he was throwing away his legacy and that in fact he might only be wanting to talk to proud boy chapters after what happened on january 6th in the capitol, she was someone who clearly was not happy with what was happening. she was a confidante and close person of donald trump, she wasn't also someone who was willing to go all of the way into thinking that the election was rigged and sort of feeding him all of the different lies and other people around him were doing. while she was loyal to donald trump, she had her limits and those limits are why she isn't close to donald trump right now. i think it is interesting to think about this moment in that context, but she is someone who i saw frequently as i covered the trump white house and someone who i saw frequently on the campaign trail when donald trump was running for office. >> yeah, carol, as we're looking at some of the back and forth between hicks and colangelo, one thing that hicks is making very clear is how much access she had on a daily basis to candidate trump and then to president trump. she says, for example, once the campaign started, my role was

different. i spoke more regularly and by june of 2015 i spoke on the phone every day. if we could not communicate in person, i would call the office and be connected or call his cell phone or home phone. and just remembering back to those days, of the campaign, and when he wins the white house, hope hicks was not someone who was easily accessible to the press. >> i think that's interesting, jose, the way you put that. and yes, it is absolutely true. she became a daily feature, almost an hourly feature of donald trump's life in the white house. in fact, she -- she had a hot seat, if you will, just outside the oval office. trump wanted her close by to come in and give him advise, to listen in and be a witness for various meetings and sometimes just to kibbutz. he was a president and a

candidate who really liked regular chatter with his folks that were close and trusted and she definitely was. so he pressed for her to have a seat, just outside the oval office, really in a place that would normally be for more junior aide, but he wanted her at arm's reach at all times. i mean, let's be fair, you know, a lot of people have discounted hope hicks as, you know, a ralph lauren model as a teenager and therefore a lightweight, just a pretty face that was near the president, but actually she proved herself quite savvy at navigating the press and navigating how to couch trump's answers to questions about huge controversies. she was at the center of helping respond, for example, to access hollywood tape, which was pretty damaging, and also critical and central to how president trump responded when there was the devastating news that his family members had taken a meeting with

a russian lawyer who was viewed as an operative of the kremlin or at least emissary of the kremlin regime. she is just exceptional in terms of crafting and being central to how president trump at the time responded to every single crisis he got himself into or found himself in. i did not find her to be inaccessible to the press, largely because i think i and my colleagues knew that she was the person helping call the shots on how to frame his answers to the press. >> carol, i love how you explain that. that's really well -- that's fascinating to hear. and, also, vaughn, she is now being asked about much of the trump world during 2015 and 2016? >> reporter: right. she is being asked about keith

schiller, who she described as his bodyguard and security liaison, being asked about rhona graff, the executive assistant at the trump organization who just testified just this last friday. and is asked currently about allen weisselberg and essentially hope hicks is being able to outline for this jury the close relationship in those who were part of his inner circle at this crucial 2015, 2016 time. and i want to jump off of also, jose, what carol said, we can expect deliberation or her to be asked about the deliberations over the crafting of statements around the publishing on november 4th by "the wall street journal" about the karen mcdougal, michael cohen $150,000 payment arrangement four days before the election. there are text messages between michael cohen and stormy daniels that investigators have already brought up in which they talked about the framing of how they were going to present that story

to "the wall street journal." and the communications on november 5th in which they explained how the statements and their efforts in crafting their statements and their denials were working in the fact that they were not being talked about widely to karen mcdougal's story in the crucial critical final days before the 2016 election. so there is a lot that we can expect them to be asking about hope hicks about the intimate detail and conversations between her, donald trump, michael cohen and others in that inner circle there over the course of that year and a half. >> and, so, danny, do we read anything into, for example, that right now hope hicks is being asked about weisselberg and the relationship that weisselberg had with trump and the trump organization, what his responsibilities were, is there anything to kind of read in the fact that she is being asked to be one of the witnesses for the prosecution. but weisselberg is not there? >> yes, you can get some of the evidence from different sources, and that's what the people are

obviously doing with hope hicks. she is testifying about weisselberg's involvement with financial disclosures, she is identifying all the characters and all their roles in the trump organization, everyone from rhona graff, she is talking about how it is a closely knit organization, how people are involved, what each person's involvement is, so it validates their own testimony, remember, rhona graff already testified and now you have hope hicks validating essentially authenticating rhona graff's involvement and what she knows. and then the same thing with allen weisselberg, because allen weisselberg is not here, she can testify about his involvement and then later on, the prosecution presumably will blend all that authenticity together with documents and witness testimony, really all in service of shoring up whatever credibility holes you might get through a witness like michael cohen, or, excuse me, keith davidson or even david pecker. that kind of testimony of hope hicks is really just laying

foundations. she was there, she had eyes, she had ears, she saw a lot, and she can explain to the jury who all the players were and what their roles were, thereby adding to their own credibility when they take the stand. >> i want to bring back former federal prosecutor robert ray and senior judge phyllis cote. it is interesting because it is almost like the prosecution is utilizing someone who is very close to trump before, during and after the campaign and when he gets to the white house, to talk about all of the other people around trump at the time, including -- i'm just struck by the fact that they're bringing up weisselberg who is not going to be brought up by the prosecution. >> well, all these other figures, of course, have issues that make their credibility subject to attack. hope hicks is unusual in the

sense that she is respected, the prosecution does not have their hooks into her, so to speak. she already testified she's testifying under the compulsion of a subpoena that she doesn't have any other agreement or the government regarding her testimony. and i think what she will have to say will be revealing, and we know, you know, a lot about what she had to say relative to january 6th. we don't really know all that much about what she will say other than this background here initially about critical issues in the case and that will involve what donald trump's intent was and whether she can shed any light on that. yes, she is part of the inner circle. yes, i imagine that you can expect to hear that her testimony is going to be truthful and she has been carefully advised by the benefit

of counsel that's her way through all of this successfully to a result that doesn't put her in any jeopardy. so, you know, it remains to be seen. we don't know what it is she knows and that's why she's testifying. we're going to find out. >> but, phyllis, the prosecution certainly knows what she knows and what they're going to be asking her, right? >> absolutely. they have talked to her, they have taken the testimony, even under oath, in terms of receiving that testimony. so they do have some idea. one of the things that will have to take place now is what limitations will be placed to make sure we don't get that unfair prejudice that i talked about in terms of the testimony and evidence. >> so, when she says she's there, you know, under, you know, a subpoena, right, and she's actually paying, she says, for her own attorneys, so it is not either the trump world or the prosecution world that is paying for her, what kind of a

witness does someone like that and the impact that someone like that has on a trial for jury members? >> i think both sides will point out how extraordinary that testimony will be, depending upon what she says, of course, but it puts her above the fray. it puts her outside of the political realm and the prosecution realm so that issue of credibility, i think, is heightened in terms of looking at her testimony and seeing it as not tainted by either side. >> so, danny, how does the defense deal with this witness in cross? >> hope hicks is a challenging witness. you may even have an order, subtly or not so subtly from donald trump to maybe go easy on hope hicks, who knows. as counsel, you have to defend your client as zealously as you can, and that means possibly challenging hope hicks on cross examination. so, with the hope hicks, you challenge her ability to

remember, this was many years ago, the better part of a decade ago, some of these things happened, you didn't keep any contemporaneous notes, you don't have anything, you're going on your memory, you're not really going to go after her for a motive to fabricate, because she doesn't really have that. at least none apparently so far. so, it is a very difficult witness to cross-examine, but you got to do it, most likely you're going to see a lot of challenges to her ability to remember and maybe highlighting the fact that donald trump was definitely not at this meeting or he wasn't involved in this conversation. remember, hope hicks was involved in meetings and conversations at least some with people like -- that have already testified in this case. so, to the extent she talked to them and trump wasn't trump was will see the defense point that out on cross-examination. this is a difficult witness. you don't want to go too hard on her. i think after direct, the jury will get that she is someone who can be believed more so than

some of the other witnesses we have seen so far. >> interesting, robert. according to lisa in the courthouse, giving her observations, she's saying the d.a. is asking hicks to serve as the eyes and ears of the trump organization and about trump's relationships with other key employees. this building block aspect of hope hicks for the prosecution is going to be more difficult to chisel away at by the defense than other witnesses we have seen so far? robert? i think we lost him. let me ask you, danny -- i could ask the judge. do you think that who she is and how she is part of an organization -- no real direct

current relationship with either one of the two parties in the courthouse, in the courtroom. does this make it a more difficult challenge for the defense to go after? >> i think it does in a sense. it also provides that opportunity to say, she corroborates the fact that he was not there, that he did not direct these kinds of actions, or the contrary. i think the strength of this witness certainly is the fact that she can corroborate other witnesses that may have issues. i like that identification that was given to them. many of them have issues. we have seen that. i think she certainly can provide issueless or corroboration to testimony that kind of puts her above the fray. >> vaughn, a lot of the focus has been about her duties. what is it she had to do? what were her responsibilities? what were -- what was her access to the trump world, both in

washington and in new york and elsewhere? >> reporter: right. danny just made this point. this is only being doubled down on by the prosecution. it's the extent to which this was operating as almost a small family business. not only the trump organization but also the trump campaign. she was specifically asked if her role as press secretary for the trump campaign in those early days who else was involved in press operations. she said, she and donald trump. then she was asked about donald trump's involvement in the campaign. who did she report to as press secretary? she responded, i reported to mr. trump. how involved was he in the media, in the press aspects of the campaign? quote, he was very involved. this is hitting at the heart, from the prosecution, with hope hicks being the one to testify to this in front of the jury, that donald trump was intimately aware and wanted to know the very specific detailed aspects

of the messaging that went out in how his campaign was functioning, at least in the early stages of 2015 when his campaign launched in the summer of 2015. >> danny, this is so very specific that hope hicks is giving information on about how involved trump was in media, in press aspects of the campaign and that -- here is a line. we were all just following his lead. this is a very effective line of questioning by the prosecution. >> only one of two things will be true at the end of this trial. the defense will try to portray donald trump as the master of a large domain that is run by lots of miniominions, and things are handed to him to sign, checks, contracts, agreements. he relies on people. he will claim michael cohen, if he submits an invoice for attorney fees, he is not going to look it over too much. he is going to sign it.

the other version is that trump was intimately involved in all aspects of his business. this was a closely held business. as hope hicks has already testified. donald trump wanted to know about everything that's going on. one of those two things can be true when the smoke clears in this trial. the jury will have to choose which one to believe. if they believe donald trump was interest pat intimately involved in all aspects of business, then they can draw an inference that donald trump would have known about something michael cohen did like pay off someone like stormy daniels. it's not as good as direct testimony. but that's what hope hicks is here for, among other things. she's here for what she heard and saw. but she's also here to describe to the jury that donald trump was someone who had his hands in everything at the business. he was not this aloof person who would just be handed bills and invoices and just sign them. most folks out there are familiar with that kind of boss. someone who is relying heavily on the people below him and

trusting in their judgment. the other kind of boss that many of us are familiar with are the ones that are control freaks. they are involved in everything. that's what the prosecution is trying to establish with hope hicks. the jury can choose to believe that, that donald trump was that kind of boss, the micromanager, involved in all aspects. that's a helpful point for the prosecution. >> yeah. yamiche, thinking back to the trump administration days that you were there covering, when they asked hope hicks, how involved was in media and the press aspects, certainly, at the time, it was very clear that the president was very interested in what the media was or was not saying about him. >> that's right. i find interesting about hope hicks' testimony based on what we have seen so far is that she started off talking warmly about donald trump.

there was cordiality there and they felt warm to each other. here she is at the top of her testimony saying that he was a good multitasker, he was someone who understood deadlines. he could sort of do a lot of different things at the same time and be effective. i think that's interesting to point out. as you said, when she's talking about the trump white house, she's making it clear that donald trump was in charge, that everyone flowed up to him. i think it's interesting she's talking about the idea that she was in touch with him every day and that the frequency of the communication just grew from she was a trump staffer on the trump organization, talking to him once a week, and then moving up to every day, almost every hour. it's interesting to hear her just sort of describe donald trump in that way, but then talk about how much he -- or talk a lot about how much he was involved in the day to day aspects of press interviews, of decisions, of financial decisions. it is a window, i think, into hope hicks and the role that she

was playing there. >> danny, the fact that right now, they are asking hicks about david pecker and about the access that he had to donald trump and the information that she no doubt had about pecker. this is an important way to tie in pecker's impact on all of this case. >> exactly right. that's what the prosecution is doing. they have some witnesses that are really interesting, flashy witnesses, but they may have credibility problems. david pecker, keith davidson, and eventually michael cohen and maybe stormy daniels. by calling a witness like hope hicks, you tie all that together so that even if you take a witness like david pecker or michael cohen on cross-examination and say, liar, liar, your pants are on fire, it becomes increasingly harder to cast doubt on the credibility or believability of their statements if they line up with

another credible witness, or even worse for the defense, a very credible document. of course, that's probably why you see the defense fighting so hard on the authentication of documents, social media posts, things like that. when the case is in, when the prosecution's case is in, ideally, they will have lined up all of this testimony, credible testimony to shore up the holes in the possibly incredible testimony of some witnesses with shakier backgrounds. that's exactly what a hope hicks does. it's why i have said, she may quietly and loudly be one of the most important witnesses. i say loudly, because people know her name. she's a character in trump world. quietly, she lacks credibility challenges and can authenticate conversations. documents. even describe the trump organization chain of command. all things that may not be as high profile in terms of testimony, they may not be as

titillating the way -- i'm going to call him david denison -- keith davidson's testimony is scandalous, but hope hicks may be the more important of a lot of important witnesses. >> i'm going to read you for a little bit the back and forth on pecker. reinforce what you have been saying. do you know pecker? i know him as a publisher of american media. i had been introduced to him. then he says, how much did you -- were you aware of and listen to conversations with pecker and trump? she says, yes, i was there. you were in and out of his office. were you ever there when pecker was there? i don't have recollection of that. it's possible. here is the question. what about the phone call between trump and pecker? she says, yes,