A recurring theme in Michael Cohen’s testimony this week was his evolving moral compass. Analyzing the last day of direct examination, veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord draw out some distinctions to be mindful of, and what the intense cross examination from defense attorney Todd Blanche was alluding to. In their estimation, the state will need to address Cohen’s inconsistencies in redirect and closing arguments. Lastly, Andrew and Mary sum up what to expect next week as the trial likely moves to summations.

With Michael Cohen testifying in the New York criminal trial this week, MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord take stock of the style and the substance of the assertions made by Trump’s former lawyer and ‘fixer’. Andrew was in the courtroom for the first day of Michael Cohen’s testimony and shares some first-person impressions as the prosecution continues to lay out the case. And he and Mary answer some listener questions on absent witnesses and the Speedy Trial Act.

We head into the “eye of the storm” as MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord explore the nature of Stormy Daniel’s testimony in depth, and why her credibility is less at issue than that of others who facilitated the hush payments to her. Then, they turn their prosecutorial expertise to understanding why the defense’s mistrial motion was denied by Judge Merchan. And lastly, Andrew and Mary detail what to glean from Judge Cannon’s indefinite postponement of the classified documents trial in Florida.

As witness testimony continues today with Stormy Daniels in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial, jurors also recently heard from former Trump advisor Hope Hicks and longtime Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney. After trading some testimony takeaways, veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord get nerdy on the significance of exhibits 35 and 36. Plus, Judge Merchan gives a sober warning to Mr. Trump as he rules on another gag order violation. And an update on the Florida classified documents case.

For further reading: Here are exhibits 35 and 36 that Andrew and Mary refer to in this episode.

As week three of Donald Trump’s criminal trial wraps up in New York, Andrew Weissmann paints a first-hand picture of the scene—both outside and inside the courtroom — after attending on Thursday. Then, he and fellow MSNBC legal analyst Mary McCord recount the gist of Keith Davidson’s testimony and cross-examination. And Andrew and Mary answer listener questions about the trial.

For further reading: Here is the decision Andrew referenced of a 2020 order granting attorney fees between Stephanie Clifford and Donald J Trump. As he noted, page 20 is relevant.

Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial is back in session Tuesday, as Judge Merchan fines Trump $9000 for gag order violations. Last week, David Pecker wrapped up his testimony, detailing the catch and kill scheme, and jurors also heard from Trump’s assistant, Rhona Graff, and bank executive Gary Farro. After examining the art of cross-examination, veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord note the options available to Judge Merchan as he hears a second set of alleged gag order violations this Thursday. Plus: what Walt Nauta’s grand jury testimony indicates in the Florida documents case.

For further reading: here is Judge Merchan’s decision on the first set of gag order motions.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, which will have implications beyond whether he is shielded from criminal prosecution in the January 6th case. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord go deep on what arguments to pay attention to. This, as the New York trial wraps up a week of testimony from former AMI CEO David Pecker. And an analysis of the latest indictment related to election interference in the 2020 election, this time from Arizona.

Donald Trump’s lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that he should be granted immunity for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Hear every word of the oral arguments in a case with potentially huge implications for Trump, the 2024 election and the nation’s rule of law.