‘Visible difference’: Sketch artist details moment Trump’s behavior changed in court

President Trump's hush money trial suddenly erupted. There was a heated

moment

. Alright. I'm going to show you in a

sketch

,

court

room

sketch

artist

Elizabeth Williams captured this. She's my guest in a

moment

. Tell him what you're looking at. This is Trump and his lawyers and what they were doing when prosecutors made the case admit text messages, plural mixed messages in evidence related to Karen McDougal's hush money payment, including one from the editor of the National Enquirer, Dylan Howard. Then this text message is published. It was 2016. And this editor's text message to an immediate family member, quote: At least if he wins, I'll be forgiven for voter fraud.

Trump and his team were visibly upset by this text. One of Trump's lawyers yelled: Whoa! IN FRONT now, Elizabeth Williams, a cartoonist who was in the

court

room with Trump today and, of course, has been throughout this entire trial. Well. So I just want to emphasize that text conversation. The judge has not decided whether he admits that text or the evidence. The jury was not in the room when this was published. But you were there. The lawyers were there. Trump was there. What happened? Well, the contrast, because Trump has been quite serious throughout this trial. He has been with his head forward or slightly towards the witness.

That information came out and the three of them, Trump and his two lawyers, sat down. They immediately start talking to each other, I mean, it was a

visible

difference

because for most of the testimony this morning, I think Trump expects and knows what's coming. They were totally unexpected. And he really reacted. He was talking to Blanche and he was talking to Beauvais. And the Blanch package again and Blanche. And then the three of them. I mean, I can't draw emotions, but there were a lot of them, which is fascinating. And again, we don't know if that text will be admitted into evidence for the jury and jury.

The jury doesn't know. They have been told not to look at the media. So you know, they're following that. They won't know unless it's admitted. Alright. So there's another sketch when you talk about how Trump's

behavior

, you know, has been serious, was the word you just used. Good. Well. So here's Trump watching and listening while Pecker is on the witness stand today. And that's what you're capturing. Of course, he also sees Judge Mershon. So what caught your attention the most about Pecker? Well, first of all, this is your lawyer's cross-examination of Pecker. And now the election is being talked about in the Arnold Schwarzenegger National Enquirer.

Good. They're trying to draw a parallel to what Arnold did. And then it's all the same. It doesn't matter if this happens. And Donald Trump is very interested in this. And he starts to turn around like he's never seen it. He turns around and tries to put his arm on the back of the chair. He certainly looks in the direction of the jury. I mean, I was looking for you to look there. And your photo, that's the jury there. And then he didn't keep his arm there long enough for me to draw it, but he definitely wanted to see if the jury was listening.

They are going to react or what they think is important because finally it was some testimony that favored him and his case. So he was very interested in that. And I haven't seen him do that since the beginning of this trial. And by the way, he hadn't seen it, you know, he didn't seem to have that kind of body language during the Carroll case either. He thought you really know, it seemed to me from his body language that you just scored one too early. Well we'll see. And thank you. It's always a pleasure to see you.

Brant, let's talk more about what the scene was like inside the courtroom today. Yes it was. I found the contrast between the end of the right to direct examination and that of cross-examination interesting. Direct that we have seen in recent days and very methodical. They go over every detail, pulling back the curtain on those pecker murder capture plans, bringing up text messages with evidence, how they discussed signal apps with Michael Cohen. And then once we got to the cross, it was Rapid Fire, right? Basically, the defense was leading him. Exactly. Poking holes in what the cross had just spent days and hours doing with Pecker.

So I found it very interesting. Another thing that I thought was very interesting and you just mentioned the interviews that you did and what was mentioned, of course, is the Access Hollywood tape and all these

details

that these jurors most likely heard before the 2016 election. They were extremely captivated. Captivated. We were learning that, you know, there was ping pong, ping pong back and forth between the questions being asked and Pekar's response. So that was interesting. Meanwhile, the former president sat back, particularly during Pekar, as if direct, sometimes he would sit back with his arms crossed, close his eyes, listen and a little more, but he didn't really react much to what his former friend was saying in the stand a few meters from him.

So there was kind of a quiet drama in a sense within the courtroom, but you could certainly feel it. But you want to get a quick text from everyone about what stood out. I mean, what stood out, you know, is why Britain says prosecutors know you don't high-five at the end of the direct examination. That's the easy part. And I think the change in pace and tone that Brown noticed was interesting. And I think the defense has started to score some points and chip away at them. In Pekar's testimony, for example, they established this trap and kill thing.

It's about capturing stories, doing favors for celebrities, putting pressure on celebrities. Donald Trump didn't invent that. This has been happening since the beginning of tabloid journalism. That is important context for the jury to understand. Michael Cohen, I think you made a good point when you established that Michael Cohen is always playing an angle for himself. They took it from the state's witness, the district attorney's witness. And the last thing I think is that there is a contradiction in an important part of Parker's testimony where he now says that Hope Hicks was at this crucial meeting when they started discussing this plan.

But it turns out she didn't say that the first time investigators asked her. Now, I'm not saying he's broke as a witness, but this is a back and forth. I think he did a good job live. He would be happy with that if he were the prosecutor. But now sit down because now he is assuming that some damage must be done. Yes, speaking from my time as a prosecutor, I agree. I think he would be happy if this were my witness. I think what he points out is something we talked about the other night, in fact, is that it's pretty easy to point the finger at someone else.

But I think what happened today is that Parker points the finger at himself. He basically admitted that he was part of a criminal conspiracy and spoke importantly about election crimes and his own concern that exactly what they were doing violated what he had actually raised and said that he sought legal advice about that at the time. Exactly. And I think that's incredibly damaging because the truth of the competing narratives here is that we're talking about a personal issue and this money to keep quiet, which is what everyone does. It's what rich people do to write stories.

Are we talking about a campaign violation? Are we talking about people participating in a conspiracy because they know they are trying to influence the election and that is the core of the prosecution's case? And today, David Parker said that's exactly what was happening. Arthur Watts, that's what I heard. And I think he is absolutely right. You know, in cross-examination, they raised some unusual points and in the way that you described in Britain, they went in like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Is that what you want. And you only have one chance to make a first impression on this jury.

This is the first big cross-examination. He wants jurors to know that from the beginning. You're going to hear all these direct, enjoyable, prepared, fully rehearsed exams. But look what happens. Look what happens. Notice how we fully understand it once we delve into the

details

. Apparently he had a friend who was in the courtroom. He said that after the first hour and a half of cross-examination, he wanted to take a shower after hearing how dirty the tabloid industry is. And I don't really know the details, but apparently there's a lot about Arnold Schwarzenegger and when he was going to run away and all the stuff they buried with.

Good. Good. Pecker was testifying that Arnold Schwarzenegger had actually been in contact with him to basically do the same kind of catch-and-kill thing. Yeah. And I guess I mean, today's analogy is like, well, what's the problem with bringing them up? If a jury is there and they're hearing a crime and someone talks about how horrible double parking is, but then you have like 18 other people who don't park and you double park, you double park. This slides into the jury nullification basket, so this is standard operating procedure. It's not like Donald Trump is the only one who has done this.

Like, Oh, this is what all politicians do. They pay to bury stories or for someone to simply help them. Jessica, I was going to pick up on that point, I mean, one of the important things about establishing that I did this for a lot of other people is that it tends to negate the idea that this was done for an electoral purpose. Good. Yes they are catching and killing stories for many other celebrities, even though Schwarzenegger was running for governor. Good. And Mark Wahlberg was not. Good. I mean, there are other people Packer was saying we'd do this for.

And I think, at the end of the day, Packer was still a very effective witness for the prosecution. And I think there are many answers to this. He talked about how we're approaching President Trump's election, that the concern Trump expressed was about the effect on his campaign. However, I think it's normalized to state that this was some sort of standard operating procedure. Arguably it makes it seem like it's less related to the campaign itself, which is important. But overall I thought he was an excellent witness and also, significantly, he showed no bias toward Trump. I mean, not only was he not shirking responsibility for his own criminal conduct, but he was saying that he still considered the former president a friend.

He didn't look like he had an extra. He wasn't there, he couldn't hold anything back and had no interest. If I were Donald Trump, I would be very happy about what happened today in Washington. I wouldn't even care what happened in the courtroom today, because I think the Supreme Court really signaled that we won't see another trial this year. We'll get to that later tonight. I know. But the value for Pecker's prosecution is that he set the framework for this story. You know, now the jury understands that there were 33 witnesses, three paid. You know, all of that is going to be completed.

Maybe they believe it. Maybe they won't. You know, your idea that this is so terrible and, you know, this is business as usual. Who was his partner in all this? Donald Trump. Don't you think the jury is going to be a little offended that this guy who's running for president of the United States is involved with all that garbage that he buried, that he buried a sexual story, that you heard from his witnesses so that this a celebrity started that celebrity, a kind of celebrity, a kind of celebrity or this celebrity that happens all the time.

It's not that unique. My God, they came. This is Watergate. That's my point. Watergate was a unique time. It's the first time something like this has happened. What came out in cross-examination is that all this happens.