Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Now: Trump's Defense Making Closing Argument. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired May 28, 2024 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Trump has turned his chair 90 degree, so he is facing Blanche and the jury, which were told this unusual. Their goal was to make as much money as possible off of President Trump, Blanche says.

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I mean this feels to me like the spaghetti at the wall theory of reasonable doubt, like he is trying to kind of toss out any different way, any individual jerk possibly, you know, hang on to a piece of information that would cause them to doubt the overall case. I think -- the thing I keep coming back to is that this does feel disconnected to me. All of these different pieces as opposed to one kind of fully coherent argument.

Now, I mean, Jamie, I know you're a jury foreman. I mean, maybe you see something here that that I don't, but I mean, he's clearly trying to kind of discredit everything in a blanket way. But he's using all of these specifics that are causing you to kind of go down and say, well this, then this, then this, that seems to be the theory. I just don't -- I don't --

TAPPER: I will say in Todd Blanche's defense on this point. I think that there is an argument to be made that this is a case based on Stormy Daniels, Keith Davidson, Michael Cohen, all of whom have either lied before or seen shady. Jury, are you really going to do this? May know even if you believe Stormy Daniels, she signed two documents saying that there's no truth to it, then she took it back.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: But the question is, why are they focusing on this and not on Michael Cohen, especially whatever you think about Stormy Daniels? Want to quote, Mitt Romney? First, you know, there's a --

TAPPER: It's -- we'll except. Again, they have already proven that they spent $30,000 paying off somebody whose story was complete BS. The doorman, who had some bogus story about Donald Trump, fathering a kid outside his marriage. I'm not saying what I think about 2006 -- I am saying is there not come reasonable doubt that this isn't even the crime, right? I mean, that having a rendezvous with Stormy Daniels, but the --

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Reasonable double on what he's not being charged for. TAPPER: No. But the idea is, how can paying off money to hide something from the public that never happened, be election interference. That's the argument they're making. Not just -- they're saying even if you pay -- even if they pay the money, and Michael Cohen paid the money. Well, hold on one second. We have here. Trump's lawyer says again, there's no evidence, except for Mr. Cohen's words that President Trump knew about that.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: That's critical part, right, because it's about -- it's not about necessarily whether or not this rendezvous between the two of them actually took place. There is, I think, a major question and a major opportunity for the defense here to say that, like all you have is Michael Cohen's word on whether or not Donald Trump knew anything about this. And if he didn't know anything about this and there's no crime.

TAPPER: If the theory of the case is that it's a misdemeanor business falsification case, that becomes a felony because it's in the condition of a different crime, which is election interference, according to this theory. And the election interference is keeping from the public something that happened. And if Todd Blanche is saying, it never even happened, so how can that be election interference?

HUNT: The Republicans will believe anything now. I mean, it's -- whether it's true or not true, think about how information even if it's out there. The number of things that actually we know happened that Donald Trump says doesn't happen is the level of misinformation we're dealing with is quite high.

BASH: Yeah. It's not to prove that it is election interference doesn't require proof that what they were worried about actually happened.

TAPPER: Is that true?

BASH: I think so. I'm going to -- let me just finish my -- my question is, isn't it just that they have to prove that they were concerned that the public would know?

TAPPER: We're coming to the lawyer in one second, but just to update everybody. So again, the Access Hollywood tape comes out in October 2016, Todd Blanche says. And that's when Stormy Daniels and her manager Gina Rodriguez seized an opportunity. Again, this is the defense's theory of the case that nothing actually happened between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels in Nevada at that golf tournament in 2006, that nothing happened.

Therefore, how can it be election interference? Blanche says, they thought now -- now's the time to strike. In other words, they made the whole thing up. But let me just --

BASH: -- say it, it's not the crime.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, a juror is going to look at this and say, what would it have been problematic to have this out there? Were you concerned about that allegation?

TAPPER: Does it matter? If it's true or not?

COATES: Well, if somebody were to make a claim that somebody was a bigot, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's out there politically. And that makes the person now vulnerable to losing their race. Also, they're standing in the community in general society as well. And so, allegations and words do have a consequence --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Todd Blanche is showing text messages between Dylan Howard, the editor of the National Enquirer and Gina Rodriguez, who is Stormy Daniels manager saying that he believes David Pecker, who was the head of this tabloid empire would pay for the Stormy Daniels story. Doesn't matter if the election interference is in the service of hiding a story -- suppressing the story that is not true. Does that matter? Not legal?

[12:05:00]

COATES: No. Legally they have to -- first of all, this is -- this is why it's so fascinating. What they have to prove is falsified business records. Well, we're talking --

TAPPER: In the service of another crime.

COATES: In the service of another crime to elevate it from a misdemeanor to a felony. But the idea of the underlying crime, we have not seen a theory for this jury that it's based on extra marital affairs. It's based on whether there was a campaign contribution or a tax related crime. And so, neither of which requires there to have been truth of an actual sexual encounter.

What they're trying to do here is paint Donald Trump as a victim -- as a victim of extortion. That this poor man, as a married man, as a candidate, as a wealthy man, is somebody who routinely has to confront people who are trying to undermine him that he has to pay off these different stories.

And so, by painting him as an extortion victim, they're trying to suggest that all he was doing was completely not nefarious, that it was benign and not illegal. The problem is for the defense that during the course of the testimony, they have gotten information about the fallout from Access Hollywood from his own -- from the witnesses, that he was aware of that there'd be some reimbursement that'd be paid, not aware of money being stolen from him.

But the fact that he would have been aware of it and the timing of it. And of course, Blanche --Blanche now apparently raising his voice pacing in circles, raising his arms as he appears exasperated before the jury. Well, that in a dollar, that's all you got, we'll get you a dollar. You have to have actually a defense. And so, if he's just doing it -- that's not going to be enough. At the end of the day, they should be going at the prosecution about what will be before this jury. 34 counts of falsified business records. They haven't gotten to -- they have even raised the point yet, if Michael Cohen is even stolen from them. How?

TAPPER: So, I want to bring in Anthony Scaramucci, he briefly served as White House Communications Director during the Trump administration and he has a brand-new book out --came out last week, I think called From Wall Street to the White House and Back. The Scaramucci guide to unbreakable resilience. It features that lovely photograph of him on the cover and Carolina blue background. Anthony, thanks so much for being here. Appreciate it, as always. What do you make of the closing arguments so far?

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I want to start with the Trump Truth Social statements first, because I think there are the most telling.

TAPPER: OK.

SCARAMUCCI: He is super nervous about this. And so those bombs that he launched last night at the judge, and you know, all the suggestions that he was making, all the spurious suggestions are out of Trump's playbook. So, he knows that the facts of the case. He knows exactly what happened and he's super worried about it. And that was a tell from him. So, he's showing his cards last night.

But as it relates to what Laura is saying, you know, I think Todd Blanche did a good job defending President Trump. But it's just not enough. The evidence is overwhelming that the law was broken. And so, what's at issue here? Are there 12 jurists that believe that?

And the last point I'll make is that the judge has to be -- held try not to be, but he has to be furious at the fact that he put a gag order on the president. The president keeps breaching the gag order. And on the night before the closing arguments, he puts another nail in the judge. And so, it'll be very interesting to see how he tailors the instruction to the jury after listening to that nonsense or reading it last night.

TAPPER: So right now, Todd Blanche's defense attorney is saying about the Access Hollywood tape and that breaking in October 2016. It's a tape we've all seen it. Donald Trump and Billy Bush on a bus. And Donald Trump is bragging about how -- when you're a star, you can grab women by their genitals, they let you get away with it et cetera.

Blanche addresses the tape saying it was, quote, an extremely personal event for President Trump. Nobody wants their family to be subjected to that sort of thing. It doesn't matter whether you're running for office, doesn't matter whether you're running the apprentice, doesn't matter whether you're a normal everyday person in the city.

And Anthony, Blanche is also noting that Westerhof out who was a Trump aide, made clear that President Trump didn't freak out. You also notice that Hope Hicks believed there would be a story for the next several days. Interesting that Todd Blanche is painting Donald Trump kind of as a victim when it comes to the leak of the Access Hollywood tape. Is that how he saw it? Were you part of the Trump world at that time? And do you recall was that their attitude they thought that Trump was a victim here?

SCARAMUCCI: So that interesting enough actually happened that on October 7 -- that's totally different October 7, it was October 7, 2016. When that news broke the campaign, we met as a group, and we went around the horn discussing how to handle it. And if you recall, Jake, Mr. Trump doesn't like apologizing. But that night he did issue an apology to his wife. And I think even Melania actually came up with the locker room language for him.

[12:10:00]

But, you know, you could -- I see the point of our positioning as a victim there, but I'm not exactly sure how that's going to pull back the beyond the reasonable doubt facts of the case. If you're -- if you're suggesting that you didn't pay the money to Stormy Daniels.

If you're suggesting, he didn't misrepresent and create business fraud in order to pay that money. And then if you're further suggesting that there was no election interference because of the Access Hollywood tape, you know, you're sort of throwing a red herring out there. And it's what about ism in the court?

TAPPER: Yeah. I think what's going on here is so --

SCARAMUCCI: So, I was present for that.

TAPPER: So, just to -- you have to speed here and our -- the rest of our viewers is that Blanche is saying that actually -- so the prosecution's theory of the case is the Access Hollywood video drops. And then there's a panic in the Trump world to try to make sure the Stormy Daniels story doesn't get out.

Now the defense is saying actually, Donald Trump was not panicking. The version that says anything different comes from one witness, Michael Cohen, Blanche says, referencing Hope Hicks' testimony, Blanche -- Trump, got ready for the debate, responded to the allegations and continued campaigning.

It was one of many stressful stories that came up during the 2016 campaign. It was not a doomsday event. Trump never thought it was going to cause him to lose the campaign. And indeed, it didn't. Is that true?

SCARAMUCCI: So, the latter part of that is true. And I'll take it one step further. Mr. Trump came up with the idea of bringing the Clinton accusers to St. Louis. And so, I think that very next Wednesday, we were in St. Louis together. He was preparing for the debate. And then an hour prior to the debate started, he hosted a news broadcast which I think, Juanita Broaddrick and a few others that were accusing President Clinton of sexual peccadilloes 30 years prior.

So not only is that true, what you're saying, and what Michael Cohen is alleging, but it's also backed up by further thought process for Mr. Trump. And furth --

TAPPER: No, no. I didn't explain --

SCARAMUCCI: -- for that second St. Louis debate.

TAPPER: Yeah. I didn't explain it well enough that. So, what Todd Blanche is saying is that the Access Hollywood video was one of many stressful events, but it wasn't that big a deal. Trump never thought it was going to cause him to lose the campaign. But Michael Cohen, quote, had a different view and nothing. So that's what they're saying.

Is that Cohen was terrified that the Access Hollywood video was going to sink -- was going to say Trump --

SCARAMUCCI: I misunderstood that.

TAPPER: No, I apologize. The testimony is coming in and I'm feeling to you. Yeah.

SCARAMUCCI: OK. Yeah. But listen, I was there, Jake. So, let me -- let me step back and re-stipulate who's ever saying that he was bothered by it? Yes, he was bothered by it. He was concerned for 24 hours. He then late that evening. He went to the studio on the fifth floor of the Trump Tower, and he broadcasts an apology message. And then he went right back to work. And so, was he bothered by it? Yes. But he wasn't overly bothered by it. Moreover, he himself came up with the idea to bring the Clinton accuser with the campaign to St. Louis.

TAPPER: So, what's interesting, though, is because I --

SCARAMUCCI: Yes. That's know I remember it.

TAPPER: I feel like so many other people around Trump, if not Mr. Trump himself at the time in October 2016 thought that this was the end of his presidential hopes. You know, Reince Priebus and other people on the campaign. It was only as I recall, only Rudy Giuliani was willing to go out and defend him on TV.

I think I had him on the show, like three Sundays in a row or something like I mean, because he was the only Trump person willing to defend him. Chris Christie vanished. I mean, a lot of people thought that was it, dead man walking, but he wasn't. So anyway.

Blanche says, nothing was criminal and entering into the nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels. It doesn't mean when Trump was out campaigning that he knew about it. The only person at trial who told you President Trump knew about it in October, September, August was Michael Cohen.

Blanche is posing the question to the jury. Why did prosecutors called Stormy Daniels when there was no dispute that there was an NDA settlement? And she knew nothing about Trump's internal business practices. Why he says? I'll tell you why. They did it to try to inflame your emotions. They did it to try to embarrass President Trump, Blanche says. Josh Steinglass, the prosecutor objects. Judge Merchan overrules the prosecution. That's why Blanche says again, and Blanche is now playing a recording of Cohen speaking to Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels' attorney in October 2017. Cohen says, who else would do that for somebody? Who else? I did because I care about the guy. I wasn't going to play pennywise pound foolish and I'm sitting there and I'm saying to myself, what about me?

[12:15:00]

So, I guess the idea here is they are theorizing the defense that Michael Cohen did all of this by himself when it comes to Stormy Daniels. He paid her without telling anybody and then he sought repayment, but nobody knew about it.

SCARAMUCCI: Listen, it's an interesting theory, Jake, but it's a bridge too far. Because if you really understand the personalities of people and you really understand the tight-fisted nature of Mr. Trump, the fact that he rarely pays subcontractors, or what he does, it's after he negotiates the bill down. There's no way that Michael Cohen did that without Mr. Trump's knowledge. He's just not.

And so, you know, the facts are what they are. And I'm happy to call balls and strikes on the situation, even telling you that he may have been on nerve that night, but he wasn't overly unnerved. But if you're saying, did he know about the payment.

If you know anything about the personalities involved with this thing, you'd have to draw the conclusion that he knew about the payment. And he also knew about the contrived nature of that payment and the way it was going to go through the system, creating that business fraud.

And so, yes, I get it. I understand the specious argument that the defense is making, but it's not congruent with the facts of the case. You know, and this is the most interesting thing about Donald Trump. There's always fragments of truth in the argument. His supporters will hang on that. There is other people that will hang on that. But when you step back from the fragments of truth and see the entire mosaic of the situation. That's where you see the very big lies.

TAPPER: Uh, biblical allusion there, a very tall Munich (Ph). Anthony Scaramucci, good to see you as always.

SCARAMUCCI: It goes with the picture, Jake. It goes with the picture.

TAPPER: There's Muhammad Ali picture behind you. OK. Anyway, thank you so much. We'll talk to you soon. Anderson, so what's been going on while I was talking to Mr. Scaramucci? Blanche is arguing that the phrase, what about me gives insight into Michael Cohen state of mind. It made perfect sense for Mr. Cohen in 2016 to make payment without telling the President Trump about it. So, if he could get a fancy job of Trump one and a better job internally of Trump last. Blanche reminds the jury that Cohen said, what about me?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: That's right. Todd Blanche has been telling the jury essentially that Michael Cohen did this on his own. (inaudible) Paula Reid and Kaitlan Collins. Again, you know, what we have heard all morning long from Todd Blanche is chipping away at every piece of evidence that that he can find, whether it's the recording that that Michael Cohen secretly made. Todd Blanche raising questions about why did -- why was the phone interrupted when it was. And now having sort of this alternate theory that Michael Cohen did this all by himself.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, the idea though, and his argument that he was just driving home minutes ago was that the Access Hollywood tape, and when that was released was just another difficult day -- many difficult days on the Trump campaign. I was covering that campaign. That's absolutely not the case. I mean, it was seen as devastating.

People of Hope Hicks, when she went to tell them as they were in the middle of debate prep about it. People's -- the reporting at the time was that people's faces kind of turned white. No one really knew how to deal with that and how to grasp that. People inside Trump's campaign were urging him to jump out of the race.

And Blanche is now talking about Cohen's call with Keith Davidson in December. That's when Keith Davidson said that he was essentially suicidal because he was so upset about not getting a job. He's saying that Cohen had an axe to grind because he did not get a job in the White House after Donald Trump was elected. Michael Cohen testified about that and said, yes, he was upset about it, but said he didn't really actually --

COOPER: Blanche place more of the call with Davidson, in which Cohen quotes, Trump is saying, I hate the fact that we did it. Blanche provides an alternative explanation for it. But I mean, I was doing debate prep. I was one of the co-moderators of that debate, which took place on a Sunday, Fridays when it broke.

It was a bombshell for everybody in -- I mean, in the -- I mean entire -- it uprooted the debate prep for everybody. It was a major, major event. This is October 2017. Blanche was saying but this time, there's no doubt President Trump knew that Michael Cohen had made this payment.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. It was an earthquake. And even when you read memoirs from people who are close to, I mean Kellyanne Conway. They talk about what an extraordinary moment that was in the course of the campaign to argue that that was not something that significantly changed their risk benefit calculus in terms of these hush money payments. That is absurd.

Now it appears that Blanche is slowly turning the ship back towards Michael Cohen and having an axe to grind. But Blanche over the past hour or so, if he probably could have saved himself a lot of time and just gotten to Michael Cohen and this alleged grievance that he had about not going to the White House an hour ago without really hitting on all the points that he has made. They're not central to the case and whether his client will be convicted. He is really just wandering through the weeds here.

[12:20:00]

COOPER: Blanche says that phone records show that Michael Cohen and Rob Costello spoke more than 70 times. Costello was sort of unusual choice of a witness. The defense that actually called not sure exactly the impact it would have had on the jury. Blanche says, Costello told Cohen. The best way of the situation after the FBI raided his home and office would be to provide information to the feds.

REID: Yeah. That was a weird moment. You were in court for Costello's appearance. This is something that not all members of Trump's legal team thought was a good idea. Costello appeared on the -- on the stand. But he saying I don't know many -- how many lies is enough lies to reject Mr. Cohen's testimony.

I'm told that the Trump team doesn't think Costello's testimony really -- ultimately will impact the outcome of this case. It was not a good day. It was sort of a forced error. But they don't think it's going to change the minds of jurors.

COOPER: Again, let's play -- let's just read this line. He says, I don't know how many lies is enough lies to reject Mr. Cohen's testimony, Blanche says. Again, that is really at the heart of what he is trying to get into the jurors' minds about the repeated lies of Michael Cohen.

I want to bring in former New York Supreme Court Judge Diane Kiesel, along with Adam Kaufmann, he's a former Executive Assistant District Attorney for the Manhattan D.A.'s office. Judge, let me start off with you. You've heard a lot of closing arguments. I'm wondering what you make of what we've heard of Todd Blanche.

DIANE KIESEL, FORMER NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE: Well, I agree with most of what I've heard this morning, too long to meandering, and not getting to the heart of what he needs to get to, which is that Michael Cohen is a chronic liar, that he has a motive to continue to be lying. And that all of the corroboration in the world depends on your belief that Michael Cohen is telling the truth about what happened between himself and Mr. Trump and Allen Weisselberg.

I think that he's made some strong points in that regard. But I do agree that they should have been made sooner. Jurors really start to lose it after about an hour and a half or close to two hours. And I think the prosecution could end up making the same mistake this afternoon.

COOPER: Adam, what do you think?

ADAM KAUFMANN, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASST. D.A., MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFC: Yeah. I think the prosecution was talking about a four-hour summation. That's way too long for this case. It doesn't -- it doesn't need to --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPERL I'm sorry. Todd Blanche again saying, you're hearing everything from Michael Cohen. Blanche says, they showed the phone records. Then they showed him calls. But we all know how that ended that it didn't get to see the other one. But essentially saying to the jurors, all this information is coming from Michael Cohen. And he was repeatedly lying. I'm sorry, go ahead, Adam.

KAUFMANN: Yeah. No, just I -- you know, I think what we haven't heard from the defense is what people have been saying, which is sort of a thematic, consistent going over the big picture and really focusing on the fact that this case dies with Michael Cohen's credibility. The comments on the witnesses who weren't called Weisselberg and Schiller. Cohen was very effective.

But way too much time I think on Stormy Daniels, I mean that could have been discarded with whether he slept with her or not, doesn't matter, irrelevant. And ladies and gentlemen, the only reason she was called was to embarrass Mr. Trump. So, I just think it's been way too much on what referral issues with (inaudible)

COOPER: Blanche is zeroing in on an October 24 phone call to Keith Schiller's phone. I happen to be in the courtroom the morning that this cross-examination went on from Blanche to Michael Cohen. And it was quite devastating, quite powerful. That essentially, Todd Blanche kind of keyed in on this phone call that Michael Cohen has portrayed as a phone call to Donald Trump, in which he got approval to move ahead with the scheme.

Todd Blanche certainly raised questions about the truth of what the true nature of that phone call was that there's some text messages that preceded it were prank calls from a 14-year-old that Michael Cohen is calling Keith Schiller about to try to get some sort of way to get back at the person making these phone calls.

Blanche says that was his sworn testimony was a lie. This isn't a little lie. Saying that Cohen lie to that -- this jury about the nature of that phone call. Blanche says, Cohen said he talked to Trump on October 24 at 8:02 pm about Daniels situation. That was a lie and he got caught red handed, Blanche says of Cohen.

Judge, I mean that certainly was on the cross-examination. Michael Cohen appeared to -- may have appeared to have been lying. Michael Cohen had said that his memory was -- he was reminded them that it was actually to -- the nature of that phone call was two things, both the phone call to Keith Schiller about the 14-year-old boy. But also, he says he talked to Donald Trump and got approval. It was a very short 90 second phone call.

[12:25:00]

We all know that he called Keith Schiller, talked about the fact that a 14-year-old have been harassing him for several days. Blanche says of Cohen. So, Judge, he's trying basically replaying and trying to remind jurors of the strongest moment, perhaps the strongest moment that he had with Michael Cohen on cross-examination. Is that effective?

KIESEL: Well, I think it is certainly by playing that again. Remember this trial has been going on for weeks. This is -- he's near the end of his summation. And he wants jurors when they go into that jury room, either later this afternoon or tomorrow and start talking to have that fresh in their minds in case they've now forgotten it.

Playing snippets of prior testimony, showing videos if they exist in a trial. I've always found very effective with jurors. And it'll be very interesting if a jury note comes out in a day or two, asking to hear that again and it could well happen.

COOPER: Adam, does it matter whether -- I mean, clearly there's a lot of testimony and a lot of evidence that Michael Cohen has lied, repeatedly by his own admission he has lied, repeatedly under oath. In other cases, does it matter, you think, to this jury, whether or not Michael Cohen may have missed -- may have lied actually in this trial to them about a particular detail?

With that, do you think that matters Blanche, by the way since prosecutors -- Trump's attorney raises his voice, that is perjury. Blanche emphasizes each syllable of the word perjury. Would it matter to jury?

KAUFMANN: I think highlighting that moment where you seem to have caught the witness flat footed in a lie. I do think that's very effective. I agree with the judge that may be something the jury asks to hear again. You know, on the other hand, we said at the beginning of this case, everyone knows that Michael Cohen has this baggage. He's a liar. That's not going to be a surprise. So, you know, we don't know how that's going to play for the jury. But I think emphasizing this point where you do have a tape is an effective strategy for a closing argument.

COOPER: We should point out that in this moment that Todd Blanche is now really emphasizing in which as you -- Adam Kaufmann said, he was sort of caught Michael Cohen perhaps flat footed. Once they on redirect, the prosecution was able to ask Michael Cohen questions about this. And Michael Cohen essentially stuck by his story saying, oh, well, I both spoke to Keith Schiller about this 14-year-old. And I also spoke to Trump.

Is there the same absolute proof of laws for every single thing that man told you? No, there's not. For that we have what's called an oath, Blanche says. Just reminding viewers that that Michael Cohen has lied under oath, repeatedly. And obviously, it's the same oath that he has taken on the witness stand in this case.

Judge, in terms of what happens next. If once he -- once Todd Blanche close -- finishes his closing statement. Does the prosecution -- do you think they'll take -- it'll probably taking a lunch break, I assume, and then the prosecution will start after lunch, correct?

KIESEL: Yeah. I would assume that would happen. I don't think the judge is going to expect the prosecution to start and then stop for an hour or an hour and 15 minutes for lunch. I think that would be quite unfair. I suspect they'll take an earlier lunch. And I suspect that the prosecution will address all of these issues that had been raised by Blanche, which again, is why with the burden of proof. The prosecution goes last. They do get the opportunity to try and slap down these arguments.

COOPER: Judge, if you were the judge in this case, would you want this done today that he's already -- Judge Merchan has already indicated the jury is willing to go late. Well, boy, there was another time he lied to you. Blanche says, referring to a text from Melania Trump to Michael Cohen.

SCARAMUCCI: I certainly -- I'm sorry. I certainly would want the summations to be done today. I wouldn't want them to be carried over until tomorrow. I would have strongly hinted to both sides that may be four and a half hours and two and a half hours are too long. But you know, this is a once in a lifetime case.

And if they feel they need to speak this for this long of a period of time, I would have let them as Judge Merchan has. And you know, they could be talking themselves either out of an acquittal or out of a conviction, depending on how the jury goes.

But I think the best thing to do is let the parties finish up today. And then the judge can begin first thing in the morning when the jurors are fresh with his jury instructions and then they can immediately begin deliberations.

COOPER: Judge Diane Kiesel and Adam Kaufmann thank very much. Right now, they've approached the judge. Trump's state turned in his chair, facing the jury with his arm over the back. They're discussing phone records.

[12:30:00]