George Conway: Stormy Daniels’ second day of cross-examination a ‘fiasco’ for Trump defense

Stormy Daniels wrapped up

two days on the stand, managing

to turn a portion of defense

cross-examination aimed

at undermining her credibility

into some embarrassing moments

for the former president.

At one point saying

that if she were making up her s

about sex

with Donald Trump, quote,

I would have written it

to be a lot better.

Today also saw testimony

from a Trump Organization bookke

about how closely he monitors th

he writes, detailing the attenti

he paid to amounts considerably

than $35,000 checks

he wrote to Michael Cohen.

The day ended with Judge one mot

rejecting another Trump motion

for a mistrial

and denying his request

to modify the gag

order he's under

so we can talk about Stormy Dani

and capping it all off.

Stormy Daniels tweet this evenin

saying this about the former pre

quote, Real men respond

to testimony by being sworn in

and taking the stand in court.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Back with the panel.

Joining us, conservative lawyer

George Conway, who was in court

What were your takeaways?

My takeaway

was that they continue

good cross-examination of Stormy

was a complete disaster

and a fiasco for the defense. I

as because it was a rabbit hole,

they didn't need to go there.

It just was just

it just went on and on and didn'

she didn't have anything on her.

And you got to confine

crosses to basically

a few short lines of of of stuff

That's good.

They didn't do that.

I think what happened

was they had a day off.

And Nicholas is a very good lawy

by reputation.

I can

you can tell just by the way

she conducted themselves.

She knows how to cross-examine a

It knows how to ask questions.

But she was

she's her

client is a narcissistic sociopa

and who is obsessed with proving

that he didn't

have anything to do with Stormy

And so they went off on

this whole tangent on.

But basically it doesn't.

It does in a lot.

The defense's position should be

it doesn't really matter

whether that happened or not,

because even if it was extortion

you know,

it was extortion money,

it still could be a crime.

But we're trying to prove someth

that happened,

didn't happen, is

just it's just counterproductive

And it was

it just got to the point

of ridiculousness where she's as

a stormy about basically a

map of South Lake Tahoe, Nevada,

to figure out whether or not

she was walking in her

heels one block or two

where she took a cab.

It was just garbage

and it was embarrass Ussing

and to the point where, you know

if you control the wit

that you

by keeping your cross simple and

you can control the witness.

But the longer you go, the more

the witness can pop off at you.

And this woman is way smarter th

necklaces client.

And she got some really good

I mean,

I thought I saw jurors

at some point

trying to do what I was trying t

which was suppress laughter

at some of the at some of the sh

that Stormy got into.

I got into the record.

It was just

it was just a complete waste of

The good news for the defense is

that's not what this case

is going to be about

in the at the end of the day,

the mean

the defense made the mistake

also of putting this all into pa

They could have just stipulated

that we're not going to contest

what happened in South Lake Taho

and we're just going to focus th

in on the fact

of whether or not

there is proof that Donald Trump

knew about the records that that

that we claim were

that that the fact

that the prosecution

claims were falsified.

Now, let's leave apart

the fact that he

signed some of this stuff

with a backup next to it,

and he carefully read it,

it was $35,000 to his lawyer,

hadn't really done that much mor

Let's leave that aside.

That's what this issue

that if he gets off,

that's how he's going to get off

by by leaving this issue open

about what happened in that hote

they invited the prosecution

to dump all the stuff in the rec

Then they failed to object to a

some of the stuff that should ha

they should have objected

to like the bit about,

you know,

whether or not he wore a condom.

I mean, if the judge said today

he did it,

I think that should have gone in

But there was no objection

to the thing about the amount of

and what how closely

he pays attention to that.

It didn't get anywhere near

as much attention

as the Stormy Daniels cross-exam

But Madeline Webster,

who got on the stand,

it was the last witness today.

And she'll be back on the stand

tomorrow morning.

She was Trump's

gatekeeper inside the White Hous

and basically was the liaison

who was his executive assistant

at Trump organization, Trump Tow

They trained her of how to basic

that out of the White House.

And there was one moment

that the prosecution

clearly brought up where

there was an email

between her and Rhona Graff, Tru

assistant here in Trump Tower,

about buying a frame frame

from Tiffany's next door

because they didn't have any emp

for us,

a picture of Trump's mother

they wanted to put and run

a graph

responded in the email and said,

but the frames are about $650

with a 10% discount.

Can you check with him

if that's how much he wants to s

This is all Donald

Trump is the president

of the United States of America,

and he was

a Rona who knows him better

than anyone, essentially

was still checking to see

if that was too much money

for him to spend on a frame

and for her to expense it.

And I think that is where

we're going to see this go tomor

that they trying to get to the f

that he was a penny pincher

and he paid attention

to where every cent went

and we paid this guy $35,000 a m

And he has a reputation around t

of stiffing law firms like you.

Could you could

I mean, you can make a long list

notepad. There are all the refer

I mean, the recording

that Michael Cohen secretly

taped of his client, you know, T

sort of seem interested

in the details of payments.

I mean, he's talking about,

you know, in cash.

Yeah, can we do it?

Can we do it in cash?

So let me ask you this question.

Is, you know,

it seems to me

that there is a lot of evidence

that Trump in general

was very scrupulous about,

you know, how

he was spending his money

and in general looked at documen

you know, very carefully

before he signed them.

But there's not any evidence spe

physically

that he looked at these document

Do you think that's enough

for a conviction?

I mean, there is evidence

he signed those checks with the

but that's not evidence.

That's not That's not evidence.

That's the evidence that.

Is that clear?

It's clear

how you feel about President Tru

Okay.

I don't have feeling one way

or the other.

I'm looking at this as a trial a

Okay?

Looking at his objectively

as I can, as a former prosecutor

and as a current

criminal defense attorney,

what there's a big difference.

Yes, there's evidence

that Donald Trump signed the che

I've said that that's not the cr

And there's.

Caitlin, your point

up to the count on the count.

The checks, your

your point about the frame.

It's clear that he watches his m

but that's not the crime.

It's that second leap of how doe

then get written down

back in New York City?

Where is it listed? How is it li

Is it listed as reimbursement

to Michael Cohen or is it legal

Michael Cohen

There's been no proof whatsoever

that Donald Trump had anything t

with how it's listed on the ledg

in Trump Tower.

Can I try to

I can I try to frame this for a

I've posed a question to you, Ge

If the prosecution stands up tom

and says, Your Honor, at this po

can they possibly win?

They would have to dismiss the c

They could not necessarily.

And I think there's enough

circumstantial evidence

that they could infer it,

but they need to put some more o

And so so

I want to just so you know, so

it would be I agree with her.

I think if the prosecution

rested tomorrow,

it doesn't go to the jury.

So they need something

from Michael Cohen, right?

Yeah, They're going to need.

What do you think they need

from Michael Cohen?

Basically is going to explain

the missing link

that he needs to be meeting

in the Oval Office in 2018

where they basically discussed

how to do this.

And I think, you know,

and I think they're going

to do a cross on Michael

that is going to attempt to be b

the way they attempted to brutal

Stormy Daniels today.

And, you know,

and a lot of people

have low expectations for that.

But the fact of the matter is,

given everything that they appoi

to so far

from the commencement

of the hush

of the catch and kill scheme to

everything, everything,

like just fell off my mike

just to hold it up.

Basically what Michael has been

is going to say

has basically been pre corrobora

So, you know, it's going to be t

but it is going to be the key mo

I think that's exactly right.

And that bridges the gap

that I think we're seeing here,

which is there has to be that la

And Michael Cohen is going to sa

it's that meeting in the Oval Of

in 2017.

We're going to hear about

they actually

set the foundation for that toda

because the woman who testified

had an email showing

that this meeting was happening

doesn't tell us what's what was

But the jury knows that meeting

And Michael Cohen's testimony ab

Yes, I'm sorry, Go ahead.

I ask

this is going to be a dumb quest

but the fact that these payments

were split up

over the course of a year to me

seems like one of the most fishy

elements of this whole scheme.

If he were just going to reimbur

Michael Cohen,

he could have just written a che

that money was there.

But the fact that they split it

up, it seems to strongly suggest

they were trying to make it seem

like something that it was not a

that was being paid over the cou

of a long period of time, right?

GROSS up.

Well, yeah.

I mean,

I mean, regardless

of the regardless of the amount

the means to me,

I think

the prosecution hasn't

explained this or touched on thi

but that seems strongly

suggestive of a scheme

to make it seem like

something that it was not.

And that's exactly the point.

It's not enough for the prosecut

to show Donald Trump signed thes

He knew they were intended

to reimburse Michael Cohen

for the hush money payments.

They have to show that this was

of an effort to falsify

to falsely structure

these labels in the pull down me

as lawyer fees,

attorney fees in order to cover

the fact that they're really hot

How does he

but how does Michael Cohen

help on that question?

Well, look, at the end of the da

what's a reasonable doubt

or reasonable

doubt has to be that

there has to be some plausible

alternative explanation

for all these things that happen

And at the end of the day,

it's going to be

I think it's be hard

for the jury to believe

that Donald Trump

didn't know

that these payments were for Geo

I the end of the day, yeah,

an experienced lawyer view magni

You know what you would say

if you were trying this case.

You know what you would say to t

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury

one of the luckiest juries aroun

because you got to meet Mr.

Reasonable Doubt.

You saw him walk in here.

You saw him take the stand.

If there's any human being

on the planet Earth

that should be his picture

should be next to the definition

Reasonable doubt. It's Michael C

And if you have a reasonable cod

you can cross-examine Mike.

Why he there being a liar

or being a fraud.

He just opposed to the defendant

He just the defendant.

The defendant's credibility,

if he takes the stand, he's not

It is because he not

because he's been saying

all sorts of stuff.

They do not show any line

in defining anything in lying in

No, no, no, no, no, no.

But it is all about Michael Cohe

Just you asked me a question why

within two months ago,

he got in trouble, Michael Cohen

for submitting fake cases

to a judge when he s his probati

He lied to a federal judge, judg

a guy with something that he lie

that has something to do

with what he's saying.

It all goes to credibility.

Going to destroy his credibility

not going to destroy his