Hi, this is Jen Rubin, and this is Jen Rubin's Green Room. As we sit here on Tuesday,

the closing arguments are being presented in a courtroom in Manhattan. Donald Trump's lawyers have

finished, and the district attorney is summing things up. And I must say, although I don't want to

diminish the legal skills of the defense counsel, they have a small problem, and that is their client. Not only do they have a bad

set of facts, but they have a client who insists upon making dumb arguments. For example, he wants to

insist that he never had an affair with Stormy Daniels. Really, who believes that at this point in the game?

He wants us to believe that the payment to Michael Cohen really was for legal services.

Who believes that?

Even Donald Trump had admitted that it wasn't.

So by making these arguments in the closing statement, the defense

counsel kind of gives the jury the idea that they're full of it, to be honest, that they're pulling

the wool over their eyes. And you'd be surprised how those things really impact a jury. Many years ago, some lawyers made the mistake of putting

me on a jury. And it was a fascinating experience. And I will tell you, one of the things that jurors do

is not necessarily look at every witness, every argument. They kind of have a gestalt. They look at the

whole picture. And they say, which of these two sides is kind of making it up, is kind of taking

things out of context, is really not that credible? And which side is basically telling us

this great scoop.

After all, people's memories are bad.

People do shade the truth, but which side seems more credible?

Now, in a criminal case, it can't just be a 50-50.

It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that's what the prosecution is now telling the jury. We have a mound of evidence, they are saying, a veritable mountain of evidence

...