information need to. >> confirm my medicare. number. >> nope delete. >> don't give your medicare number to someone you don't know regularly check your medicare claims to make sure they are right. learn mo

code now asked about the bosley guarantee violin earth with liev schreiber, premiere sunday at nine on cnn close captioning is brought to you by tableau. watch, pause and record live tv subscription free. start watching tv for free with tableau switching to tableau has really been a money saver without a monthly corruption is amazing. >> quarter today at tableau tb.com outfront next, breaking news, the trump trial, and its fourth hour tonight of closing arguments the final word from the prosecution still going how is the jury responding? >> plus guilty? that is what former trump white house attorney and outfront regular ty cobb is predicting tonight he's here with us to tell us why and a family affair. trump's adult children in the courtroom today, except for

ivanka. where was she? let's go out front good evening. >> i'm erin burnett outfront tonight. the breaking news, the prosecution and trump's criminal trial is about to resume. its closing argument they right now are in a very brief break and it is continuing. we are now going into the evening as they tried to get this done, the prosecutor, joshua steinglass, has been speaking for nearly four hours as after. the defense had gone for two-and-a-half hours, it's been a long de steinglass for the prosecution right now, laying out his case chronologically, as he tries to dismantle team trump's arguments so far, basically, they've tried to take five weeks of testimony from 22 witnesses and put it on an actual timeline. so that means david pecker, hope pick stormy daniel's and a lot of time well over an hour today spent on michael cohen and the reason that steinglass did that was that the defense in their closing statements spent much of the time going after trump's former fixer, steinglass, telling jurors we

didn't choose michael cohen to be our witness. we didn't pick them up at the witness. the store the defendant chose michael cohen as his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on his behalf adding this case is not about michael cohen. well, that of course is the big question whether the jury buys that are not according to people inside the courtroom, juries, jurors are paying close attention to steinglass. their eyes watching his every move. and the jurors also intently watching trump's attorney as he tried to pin the entire case on cohen and his lies saying if if putting this the colon, you can't convict at one point. blanche trump's lawyer listed every person that the defense says cohen has lied to and they listed his wife, his children, his co-workers is bank or the job justice department and quote, every single reporter he talked to for about a year. and then they tried to really lay it on fixing michael cohen is the gloat literally the greatest liar of all time. that's what they want the jury to take away from this tonight. and the major question is, how these closing arguments will affect the jury. will they sway the

men and women? seven men? and five women on trump to convict or quit. >> paula reid is outfront, live outside the courthouse to begin our coverage. >> and paul, i was down there with today. i know you've been working so much reporting here and you've got some news from your sources on the trump team. what are they telling you? >> well, it's always been the belief that the likely best-case scenario for the trump team would be a mistrial here. but i'm told there are a lot of stearns that if the jury comes back and they are indeed deadlocked after they've done their, their deliberating over several hours or potentially days, that there is an instruction that the judge will give them is the so-called allen charge. this is not special for the trump trial. this something that happens in new york state. but the concern on the trump side is that once the jury gives us some direction, he will tell them he will say, look, i want you to go back continued to deliberate and trying to find some consensus either to acquit or to convict. and there's a worry that that will apply some

pressure. the jurors will feel the weight of the historic nature of this case. all the resources that have been expended, and they might try to compromise and potentially convict trump on some charges. like for example, the checks that he signed so obviously a mistrial is something that both sides want to avoid, which is why we heard today, both sides trying to convince the jury to either a quit or convict this is a dark day in america we have wreaked good case that you'd have never been varietal. >> donald trump's hush money trial, entering its final phase today with closing arguments trump attorney todd blanche telling the jury, the district attorney has not met their burden of proof, period maintaining trump's innocence, saying it's a paper case not about an encounter with stormy daniels 18 years ago that trump has unequivocally and repeatedly denied blanche saying the hush money payments were not illegal, and trump was unaware. there's no evidence

at all, not even a little bit of evidence that present trump knew anything about these false filings zeroing in on the prosecution's key witness, michael cohen, sharply saying cohen lied to, you. he's literally like an mvp of liars. blanche remarked, telling the jury he lied to you, make no mistake about it, and later calling cohen the gloat greatest liar of all time. blanche claiming cohen was the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, and that the jury should not convict based on his testimony, blanche concluded his argument by telling the jury, you cannot send someone to prison, you cannot convict somebody based on the world herds of michael cohen but that comment anger judge juan merchan, who immediately admonished that comment as outrageous and highly inappropriate later instructing the jury to disregard it, saying they could not discuss consider, or even speculate as to matters related to his

sentence or punishment that is a job for the judge, then prosecutors kicked off their closing arguments, play and clean up we didn't choose michael cohen to be our witness. we didn't pick them up at the witness store. joshua steinglass told the jury mr. trump, chose mr. cohen for the same qualities that his attorneys now urge you to reject his testimony insisting it's a deflection for the defense to make the case about cohen steinglass, explain colin's role was just to be a tour guide through the physical evidence but those documents don't lie. and they don't forget the prosecution then accused trump and the publisher of the national enquirer of trying to pull the wool well over voters eyes in a coordinated fashion. they didn't use the term catch and kill, but that's exactly what it was steinglass said. and that's the illegal part because once money starts changing hands on behalf of the campaign, that's federal election campaign finance violations this is not normal

legitimate press function. steinglass remarked, calling it over election fraud court continues in the building right behind me. the judge just took the bench again after they're giving the jury a short break. now, prosecutors been going for four hours. >> i just clear the judge's getting a little inpatient with this. >> there's no time limit on closing arguments, but the judge just top problem prosecutors, a short time ago urge them to halt with an argument. they're making about stormy daniels and just move on, citing the length so far of this closing argument, it's earn it's unclear at this point how much longer they're going to go earlier, the judge had said and that the jury was open to going as late as 8:00. >> all right. paula, thank you very much. and here we are. 707 and they're coming back into the courtroom. and it's going to continue. all right. so our experts are here as they're coming back into the courtroom. i just want to start ryan, this allen charge that paul is breaking reporting here. this concern turn that to trump team

has, that is this wraps up tonight that their biggest threat could be this allen charge. >> i think that's right. if i were them, i'd be very concerned about it because i think right now they're getting for one or two jurors as the holdouts who then could hang hang a jury, but if they get this kind of charge and they are forced to get a consensus of all the jurors agreeing that puts the pressure on the super majority of the jurors being in favor of a conviction. so i think that's right. >> they cave on the ones who would be the ones that would cause a miss trial what would cave on a few count especially if it's only one juror that's a holdout. they're much more willing to then bend to the super majority of its two together. they might band together, but either way that's not favorable to the defense when the jury gets that message. all right. >> this is this is new york law as paula said. but it does make you look at this a little differently if you were trying to go to pick off one juror, it might change that calculus as they're sitting in that room tonight. so i ran it could. now, obviously it's premature, right? because we don't know when the jury goes back, them

have a quick verdict and it may be to quit. they may go back and have a quick verdict to convict. and so until you get a jury that is somewhat deadlocked and are having we'll problems and making a determination rendering a verdict. the ax1 the dynamite charge comes out and just very briefly to be clear, the dynamite charge doesn't say to change your conscientious opinion. in fact, in the language itself, it says, we're not asking you to do that. what we're telling you is that there's no jury who would be better than you, who would evaluate this case differently from you, who would take it more seriously than you. so go back there, do the best you can to not stay wedded to your view if there's an opinion that perhaps can move you out of it and i think that is appropriate. it's been used throughout time and i don't think it is something that should be get overly concerned. all right. so the jury is coming back in the room right now. margo marrow, let me just ask you about as trump came in and he came in before the jury, we saw i don't know if we have the video here, but he gave a fist pump as he walked back in

and that was two. >> so you'll you'll see it here all right. >> now, whether he whether he's right or wrong is a separate point, but mark, do you think he's justified to do that at this point from what you've seen in these now, close to seven hours of closing arguments any criminal defendant is not justified in doing that, but mr. trump has shown itself not to be traditional in any form or fashion. so this this pumpers for the tv, it's for the election is for the audience. i if my client ever did that i would take him down a level. you cannot do that for any leasing. what's red and not to mention the jury, the judge might see it. corporis now might say it's just not the way you're supposed to act in a criminal courtroom, but former president trump has never acted the way he was supposed to. most places, particularly not in this courtroom. >> and he giving that this one because he's back in the courtroom so right now as we're all talking, the jury is back and they are going to listen to joshua steinglass, continue with the closing argument. you,

terry, are sitting with me, but the half an hour ago, 40 minutes, you were sitting in that room and you sat there for six plus hours? >> okay. >> number one, did could you follow it all that time and you know, you're you're obviously at the standard if you're following this in and out and how was the jury following it? well, i've got to say i was taking copious notes, obviously, and i was following it, but it wasn't easy and i'm a little bit disappointed and steinglass because i thought it was way too detailed. he is making a big deal out of all of these telephone calls. and he started out by talking about some of the points that blanche made when he did his closing argument. that's fine. but he did too much of well, he said this and this is what we think. and i think you have to get into your story immediately. end. he didn't get into the story. he talked about what happened in august of 2015 and the trump tower, how the conspiracy started. then he got into the minutiae, aaron, he started talking about on this day, this call happened in on the 24th at 8:04, and he just

went to detail the jury was following. they were all alert. i've got to say, once again, best der of ever seen but i thought it was too detailed and the prosecutor steinglass, just a moment ago said thanks for sticking with us as he's beginning his comments again powerpoint. and he's presented the during mr. trump involved every step of the way thanks for sticking with us and acknowledgement of this. now we're in four plus hours. is that just too long for anybody? and by the way, keeping in mind the story doesn't get a transcript of everything afterwards. that's not the way it goes in the new york criminal system. >> it seems like it's going too long and it seems like he's actually winded it up and done it twice, like he first went through this whole description of the framing the case, and he started again from the crime logical beginning and then walked his way through so he could have done a great just started the chronological beginning and then you've got your narrative and go through it. and so it does seem as though maybe he's trying to also say to the jury this really is as he has said, a mountain of evidence and they now have in presenting them,

every piece of that mountain so they're left with that impression, but that the same time and at a certain point it's going to exhaust them. they can't, they can't retain all that information. no. no. i mean, nobody can. right. i mean, it's too much information. it's just it's it's long marc are reporter in the room noted that there was a moment where a juror smiled softly and raised her eyebrows when joshua steinglass cut prosecutor in this four plus our closing argument it said, hope you're getting all of this now, mark, i'm not trying to read anything into her reaction you know, people are standing very close to each other in these settings and having some sort of a connection. it does raise the question though bigger picture have the jurors already made up their minds and obviously you've done so many cases from zimmerman and others. is this how much weight do these are? arguments have i think the arguments have a lot of weight with the lawyers who are stating them because that's why we went to law school. >> right. but the harsh reality use as human psychology of jurors as we bring them into your courtroom, sit around for a couple of hours and give him a bunch of information it's always been my position and most jurors individually have

made up their mind well, before closing argument, unfortunately, they may have made in mind before the trial is finished. the evidence presentation, but that's just the harsh reality of who we are because we are so used to making our decisions in a moment. it is not human, humanly possible for us to wait until the very end, but we tell them to so in this case, the smile by that when jurors policy in that going got it already. >> move on. and i will tell you, i think four hours for closing argument by the state is way too low keep it simple. here's the fast. we proved it klopp in a dozen, maybe facts that are undeniable and then show the law and say, go back and convict, and tell them that we know you listen and move forward this for hours. i think really almost causes if you think about it very quickly prosecution is hurt by complication the defense is helped by complications. you make it more complicated. there's reasonable doubt. >> you go in and it's very simply. >> and then the jury will

listen to you and building and so many complications that the job go ahead and thought about the app. now i'm worried about and to that point, steinglass right now is put up a timeline and we're back in august of 2000151 it could be forgiven for thinking, oh, my god, we're back in august of 2015 and it's only seven, 14 and how am i going to be here tonight? >> because that's a lot of years to get to where we are without question and i do agree with the panel and i will not be just a contrarian, just to be one, the reality is, is that this is human nature. when you have and you're trying to relate to people, you want to connect with them. you want to make your point and sit down, tell him what you're gonna do. do it. tell him you did it this is what trump did. this was his intention and doing it. this is motivation with respect to doing and this is how he did it. >> that's it. >> and so i just think there comes a point where too much is way hey, too much. >> and i think the reality is when you lose people, you do yourself a disservice and that's not the point of closing argument. the point of it is two summed up, bring it home and let them know. this is why i win. you lose the jury, you lose the case. i want to

bring in paula reid here because as she's again, outside the courthouse with your sources on both teams of attorneys here, paula. but i'm curious reyes, as to what you understand the strategy of trump's team wasn't me. that was a two-and-a-half-hour. a closing argument, right. did they did they think that was going to be short relative to what the prosecution is going to is doing right now, or do you think they're surprised? hi, by the length of this prosecution close yeah. >> i think they are earlier today, as we reported, they expected to go about two-and-a-half, three hours because they believe that's about as long as any juror wants to hear from the lawyer and closing, i top-line stuck pretty close to that. he was around three hours. but they had another goal and that was to prevent joshua steinglass from going into who tomorrow. so they were trying to keep it short enough that assigned glass did try to draw this out too long. >> it would annoy the jury now, with some help from the jurors, who are willing to stay late. >> hey, tonight and the judge, it appears that this will likely wrap today, but they have a lot of reasons for 1d to keep it tight what was so

interesting to me though, about the defense this morning is it had been laid out for me that they there were of course going to try to distance the defendant from the allegedly falsified documents. courts, you're going to do that. that's right. the heart of the case. horse, they're going to attack michael cohen's credibility but what was surprising is everything that happened in-between those two arguments, todd, blanche spending a lot of time getting a lot of oxygen to things that really just didn't matter. and i think that that's one of the things that prizing that he brought up. karen mcdougal, that he went into the weeds and a lot of issues. >> these are really won't make or break the case. >> and the general consensus seems to be, he could have done a great job in just an hour, hit a few key themes and instead he was, as he has been throughout this trial, effective at times, but also rambling and taking a long winding road to get to that key point. >> well, an interesting as you point out, maybe both could have done what they needed to do an hour, right. and which which raises the question here as to why they're going so long and i'm wondering taking a step back here. the jury's given a week off not and able to go about in the regular

world, not sequestered and they don't get transcripts of what happened in the prior month. so is there somehow a psychological pressure on the lawyers well, they checked out for a week and they're not gonna remember anything i said in the past month, so i'm going to try to like diarrhea them out. the whole thing today it's a great point that could be why they've overcompensated are compensated in this direction because the jurors memory will fade over six day period and now they want to bring it all back. >> so that's might be why they've gotten both teams have gone in the direction of longer closings but have over compensated gone seems at least in the prosecutor sayyed way too long. but that would explain it. mark the mistake, leaving that jury alone for a week with a massive mistake. >> i cannot believe that they did not have jury instructions ready for that. at the very end of the case, it's saying to me to let them not only be exposed are infected by al-saud information which now has to be disclosed and it's going to be litigated. but yes, they do forget. we are so used to this because we look at we report on

it, we take our notes juries don't this stuff has become sort of intellectual gobbledygook with them by the time the jury or the witness get off the stand, very difficult. >> and maybe the reason why they had to go back over and back over, back over. but i'm telling you four hours you've lost the 20 at two, even though there's still looking at you. okay, so to the point mark emeritus made about sequestering. so they're not sequester. they go about their reasonable their normal lives. >> so the odds that one of them saw a newspaper article about this or went to a memorial day party and someone finds out there on the jury, the bottom line is the vineland that a conversation happened or something having that shouldn't happen. >> it's likely are likely. >> is that someone finds out about that. is that a mistrial? >> it. is not. and so the issue is is, look, this is real life and you're going to be at a barbecue on memorial day weekend and people are going to raise issues and you're going to walk away and you're going to hear things. you're going to be driving and you're going to hear the radio and you're going to be walking and people are going to be talking and arguing and debating the issue is notwithstanding that, can you

confine your real role to the merits of the case is heard in the courtroom and just on the issue of in terms of memories, there's something called reebok aaron. and then read back what essentially that means is if the jury is having really a memory gap with respect to a critical piece the evidence, they send a note out to the judge gets that part rafah, you send a note out to the judge. it comes out the judge assembles the lawyers says, hey, we have a note with respect to this evidence, du you want the rack do you want cross and you read it back to them? that's how you refresh their recollection, but i don't think there's any basis whether there's a week or two week. all right. layover to going into this detail, but everyone does it different. >> so what is the bar for a mistrial if when you don't have a sequestered jury and people are out living their normal lives. and what is that? baryon the burberry, if a juror actually admitted for example, that it did affect their thinking or something like that, but we've also got they tell somebody or i didn't know what a couple the judge she asks them if they've if there's evidence that they've been exposed to information that they shouldn't have been

in the judge can ask them about that, but we've also have a bunch of alternatives on the jury pool. and they've been sitting there the whole yeah. >> so i don't think we're heading in that direction unnecessarily, but the problem is that we the court system might not detect this improper influence. so that's another issue, but it's not it doesn't go to the question of a miss trial, but it does go to a question of the integrity of that. >> so in right now, they're doing what you were saying they were doing all day. they're now talking about the dates of calls calling the 24th on like this. this happened this de this is right now what you see on the screen live from the courtroom. this is the problem prosecutor joshua steinglass, who is speaking. >> as we speak is this is continuing into the night were there terry specific moments today that did resonate with the jury that you were able to see someone whether nodding or i suppose furiously taking notes, could you tell well, i guess on the defense, side to tell you the truth, i think blanche made some points today, one of the things things he did was he said, look reasonable doubt, there are ten reasons why you can have reasonable doubt. and i think the jury was paying attention to that. he was saying that trump had

nothing to do with the invoices and trump did not intend they have no evidence of that. and i think that that did hit home and the jury focused on that. >> as far as the prosecution is concerned, i think that when he it started to tell his story that's when the jury perked up. >> he wasn't going all over the place. he wasn't attacking what the defense was doing. he was saying, look, this is a conspiracy. there's no question. they got on that call. they were in that room and they tried to influence the election and he went over the three laws that could possibly be the underlying law that he breached the tax fraud, the campaign finance, and the election law. and i thought he did a good job of that. and i think the jury understood what was going on. mark looking at it as a defense attorney do you think todd blanche successfully from what you could tell raised what reasonable would be when you put it in front of the word doubt for that jury right. so i think he tried i if i were to

critique him, i don't think he did quite a good enough job to let the jury know what reasonably now isn't desert. >> she sort of presumed it and then securities here it is, here it is. but remember those jurors, even though we told them to do it this way, you have never in their life use the standard of reasonable doubt. what do we do as humans? we go right back to what we call a preponderance, right? just let me know and i'll make a decision to do that. 1,000 times a day. so if you are not sort of sensitizing that jury to the fact that this is the highest standard we know beyond virtual certainty is beyond a reasonable doubt. and he didn't really hit that enough to let these jurors no, it is not. innocence. we're talking about. it is did the state proved there prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? if not, you just tell the prosecutors better luck next time you did not convince us not there is innocent, but that you didn't convince us of your case to the standard you told us to follow so joey, take us into the room right now that it looks as if from what we understand that steinglass appears to be putting a timeline graph i

forgot. >> again, right? to summarize, his summary to ferry so we'll see that we didn't thought that they might be done by 8:00 p.m. eastern 7203. so we'll see if that's what he's really doing. but then what happens? >> so what happens is this hill, some uphill conclude and then tomorrow the jury will come in and let me talk a little bit about what mark was talking about in terms of reasonable doubt the judge will then give the jury specific instructions as they relate to this case, the judge will also give instructions about reasonable doubt, not a mathematical certainty, but about that's within reason he'll go over that is judge merchan, the specifics of the jury instructions. what is falsification of business records? how does that apply here? what is an intent to commit another crime and they're to be clear, could be right. a lot of questions surrounding that. you don't raise your hand at the time for your urine, say, hey, what's that again? but what will happen is, is that once did judge goes through those jury instructions, which we'll take a quite an amount of time to take gold witnesses who might be an interested witness. and what that means, et cetera.

whole bunch of stuff there. and so when they go back into the jury room to deliberate, they may have questions questions on testimony, questions on the law, questions on reasonable doubt, questions on a number of other things. they'll call them back into the room after they've they sent out a note and a judge will delineate an answer to their question, what the specific answer is, and be responsive. all right. so there are two people, teri, who could have testified and made this a beyond a reasonable doubt is a closed closed bookcase, easy. >> guilty or innocent. >> and that's keith schiller and allen weisselberg, ones on rikers island, one we don't know areas. they didn't call either one. >> the prosecution because they didn't think that they would answer the questions or whatever it is. but does that weigh on the jury that they know that there are two people out there who actually know factually whether trump knew or not, and neither one of them were called? absolutely. >> ways on the prosecution. i think i think the fact that weisselberg wasn't called, i think the jury does know that he's not available and they know why he's not available. so i don't think it hurts that

much. >> keith schiller actually is somebody i think the defense should have called because he could have confronted what in fact, michael cohen was saying what happened to the one that cohen and said, oh, actually, i guess i did speak to maybe i spoke to keith schiller, but he handed the phone to trump, correct? >> correct. and had this conversation. so keith schiller knows exactly whether that conversation happened with trump and cohen about i found it very interesting that the defense also arguing that there were all these other missing witnesses, and they said in the closing, blanche absolutely said, well the prosecution could have called donald trump or eric trump or all these other people. and i don't think that sat well with the jury because why would the prosecution called those people? because those people aren't going to support what the prosecution is saying. missing witnesses are very interesting for the jury to consider what all of you please stay with us steinglass again. now, going through the timeline here, talking about david pecker, donald trump, karen mcdougal as we're sitting here, are those closing arguments continue? >> our breaking news continues

with our live coverage of that. plus a guilty verdict in just days. >> that is what trump's former white house lawyer, ty cobb is predicting tonight. why these next and then this today thank you very much trump's wife melania, his daughter, ivanka, were no shows at today's hearing, despite the fact that everyone else in the family was their outcome smile you, found it the feeling of findings, psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfilled with the one and only so tick to a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaques, psoriasis, and the chance that clear or almost clear skin, it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up so we're finding you don't have to hide your skin. just your background once-daily subject to was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if

you're allergic to so take too serious reactions can occur. so ticked, you can lower your ability to fight infections including tb, serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides or had a vaccine or plan to tick to as a tick to inhibitor tick two as part of the jackpot emily, it's not known as our tiktok has the same risks as jak inhibitors find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's the only one, so tick two. ask for it by name. so clearly you so tick t o

my grandfather's run miok the header for over 75 years now. >> he's got so many life experiences that you can share, finding the exact date blend ancestry at that or family business was founded was special to share with my grandfather. when you get that moment every day what he's thinking i'm thinking about her honeymoon, about africa so far hot air balloon ride swim with elephants three, four to safari. >> great question. like everything takes a little planning for what the mind towards the down payment on a ranch in montana with horses. >> let's take a look at those scenarios jpmorgan wealth management has advisors and chase branches and tools like wealth plan to help keep you on track when you're planning for it. >> all the answer is jake p. morgan, wealth management pods spring moving sale has been extended, save up to 25% on moving in storage until june 10, and cbi posits been trusted with over six million moves, don't wait, use promo code 25 now to save, look at pot.com

today, they say we should stop eating so much meat so we made, meet out of plants because we meet out of plants because we aren't quitters shell renewable race fuel. reducing emissions by 60%. ♪♪ we're moving forward with indycar. because we're moving forward with everybody. shell. powering progress. i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity.

doctors preferred better science, better results. i'm on raja and capitol hill. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> we're continuing our live coverage of the ongoing closing arguments in donald trump's criminal trial. as i speak, the prosecution is making its closing argument. judge merchan, urging the prosecution lead by joshua steinglass, who is given the closing argument tonight to end the presentation. bye. i 8:00 p.m. by the way, that would be five hours of closing argument from the prosecution alone were sean telling jurors at the court is taking full advantage of their flexibility tonight. so we're at 7:31 eastern seeing if this actually will conclude here in the next few moments.

>> outfront. now, former trump white house lawyer ty cobb and tie. i appreciate your time so we're now getting into our five possibly the prosecution's closing how quickly do you think once this gets to the jury tomorrow morning, we believe how quickly will there be a verdict so i think we'll have a verdict friday afternoon at at the latest it could be monday, but i think this case could easily be resolved by the weekend and fridays are usually a trustworthy data estimate. >> verdict return because because jurors typically don't want to spend that spend the weekend on this kind of stuff and they don't really want to come back the next week and delve had three full days to consider it. i think that's i think that's likely the day. >> all right. so you think by friday, you also think the jury will find trump guilty. how calm? >> i do. i think well, i think it's a combination of things, but primarily it's because the jury instructions almost

require it the judge is not going to instruct on any any level of intent or knowledge that trump should have had at or must have had with regard to the second crime, the generically referenced campaign finance crimes and the jury certainly can't be unanimous on whatever that crime is because the crime itself hasn't been identified it's out there is multiple possibilities and both those concepts are a little at odds with traditional criminal requirements of knowledge and intent, and unanimity but this is very odd statute. i think as applied here, the defense is going to have a good argument on appeal that it was unconstitutional implied. >> all right. so can you just explain tie so that just very, very simply, what instructions are you referring to? hear that? the jury that have

already been put out there that you're saying what that basically say they can't consider the motive of the campaign finance well, it's not so much that they don't say that it's just they omit any reference to what the standard is for trump's knowledge and intent with regard to whatever that crime is, and they don't specify specifically what the crime is. >> and there are multiple criminal possibilities under the campaign, campaign finance and its laws from false information to tell to to taking illegal contributions, either in-kind contributions, cash contributions, variety of contributions there are a lot of elements. so those particular fences, none of which is going to be told to the jury so all right. >> so you think that it is that that specific part about the underlying crime bow campaign

finance that is going to ensure the guilty verdict. and then just draw that line for me. from one to the other sure. >> so so they're going to basically be deciding really only the bookkeeping records and having to take it on faith from the judge and the prosecution that this was all based on campaign finance concern on the motor basically, you're saying that they're going to have to decide do you know these checks were being signed or whatever, but not the motive that he would have done it that and what and what his knowledge and intent was those crimes. i mean, you can't commit a crime that you don't understand to be a crime, and you can't commit a crime that you don't intend to commit and that's true of the, each of the the elements of those crimes and the jury is going to hear none of that. >> all right. so let me let me ask you about one other point that i think flows from this tie and that is trump's over the weekend, you went on social media and he was railing, it seems about what you're talking

about that at the judge jury unanimously finds them guilty of falsifying business as records, judge merchan is not requiring them to be unanimous about the motivation, right. about the campaign finance. so it seems as if he's referring to what you're referring to, but what he how he put it was on his social media post. it's completely and then he puts an all caps un-american and unconstitutional would you agree with that characterizatio n so i think he has a good argument. >> he and his legal team have a strong argument that it's unconstitutional i think the un-american is that's always sort of a subjective thing and i, i rarely buy into trump's screeds but i mean, i say this criticism of the approach of the prosecutors and the judge reluctantly because as you know, i think trump is the gravest danger to democracy that the nation has ever seen. but i do think in this case there are certainly compelling

legal issues that will be raised on it. appeal and quite likely maybe successful. >> how can i ask your view tie as to why the judge would not include what appears to be so central so i think the judge decided even before the trial when he refused to tackle these issues. >> and during jury instructions when they again refused to tackle these issues that he was going to package this up for the appellate courts. and let's appellate courts resolve these things and there is an argument under the statute that they're not required to do what they're not doing but i think that they may be wrong on that. >> and it's going to take the appellate court to tell us that the prosecution is clearly intent to take a conviction in iran as i think ellie ellie said last week and i think he's right that the prosecution is proceeding in a way that is pretty aileen pretty heavily into the evidence that what's most

questionably admitted in this case and they've spent a lot of time in closing on that evidence. and i think that's risky on appeal, but good for their odds of conviction all right. >> well, ty, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> always a pleasure. thank you. very nice to be with you. all right. you too. and panel back with me right. >> what's your understood because the prosecution spent spent a significant amount of time making the point of what trump's motive was, then it gets removed. i mean, is this something that is going to become crucial, whether it be to some sort of a mistrial or as ties pointing out for appeal i'm not necessarily. >> i mean, especially because the peel is going to stay within new york courts essentially. and the law that they're using, it is very familiar to use this kind of a law to say that the jury does not unanimously have to agree as to what the unlawful means or they can have different views of what those unlawful means. we're to influence the election as long as they all unanimously agree that donald trump used unlawful means to

influence the election under the new york election law, crime. so that's, i think they're pretty solid on that. what i don't know is if ties right, that the judge does not require the additional element of willful well, notice that trump knew he was violating federal election law. that is a significant give to the prosecutors, but we don't necessarily know that yet. right. >> we'll have to wait to see what the judge instructs the jurors tomorrow as to whether or not he says that there's an argument for unlawful means means, unlawful means, and that could mean right. civil violations, not just criminal violations of federal election law. that's what the prosecutors asked for. but we'll wait to see what and joey i mean, the point about willful, right? >> sizing you need to you need to have willfully done something and you have to have known that you were doing it. yeah. it's important now and because it's it goes this fancy term that us laura is called mens rea, and that's about what is your state of mind. and i think proving state of mind is essential in the criminal system. you want to know where you acting intentionally, where you acting negligently, that is carelessly. were you acting

recklessly? did you consciously disregard and so i think defining someone state of mind and having a ruling on that is critical. the other thing very briefly is due process is important. you can't prepare for something when you don't know what you're preparing for. and i think one of the things that has frustrated me in interest of full disclosure about this case, the conceal another crime what specifically should be the crime that was concealed what specific mens rea is associated with the conceit? feeling of that, right? okay. intentionally concealing it, but defined for me, don't say well, it could be tax law, i could be campaign finance, it could be election law, it could be this, it could be that, that's not the way this is played. the reality is, is be definitive with respect to what you're doing. and if you don't do that, it's problematic to me mark, how do you see it? so i look at it i think it's problematic. chris, re in criminal law. look for certainty, right. if you're going to prove the case brought a reasonable doubt, we know what it is you're attacking the ester over and we can defend to it this alternative way of arguing one, two, or

three different ways is a little bit troubling to good in the gut. criminal defense attorney is sort of like you have to prove up reckless driving. okay. is reckless driving value use of signal going outside of the lanes, speeding a little bit. and that's sort of what they're saying. you can convict him of reckless driving, but you don't all have to agree it was because he didn't put on a signal or because you were speeding or because he will over the white line as always, you know that it was reckless freedom to do that. and quite honestly, that's what the prosecution probably should've said in a way to try and get it across as too, they all alternative ways to the same goal it does, seem terry to the point that you're making sitting in that courtroom though. and i think as we're talking about it, every time you have this conversation, it's almost like you need to start yourself intellectually at the beginning and build it up. it's confusing and it's complicated. >> it is. and i do think the prosecution should have explained it a little bit better, but i think as far as the charges are concerned, the judge kept saying when they were arguing about these charges, i'm going to use the standard language and the standard language will or will

not include the word and ten, i think what the defense was trying to argue is you should talk about willful and they wanted it to be more intentional. so obviously, it's the fact that donald trump didn't understand that he's breaking the law. he wasn't intending to do it the judge basically said, look, there these three alternatives, i'm going to read the standard language and to the extent that it does require intent, i'll be reading that and we'll see tomorrow. but he didn't say based on what i heard that look, i'm not going to say anything about intent at all. if the statute calls for he's going to rate it. so we'll see because of course these instructions when they come tomorrow i'll be crucial to this whole conversation and what he really says all right. >> well, as the prosecution's closing argument is now, we're firmly in the fourth hour here. they were supposed to be done at eight and we'll see right now, as you can see, steinglass is talking juries determine intent all the time actually talking about this issue, saying of the need to proven intend to so we're we're right on we're right on that right now right now as trump's in that room though, he is there with people from his family, a

whole bunch of people, john junior, eric, tiffany trump, all sitting in the front row der closing arguments. >> and of course, everyone's taking note of who is not there. ivanka and millennia not showing up for a single day of this trial thank how far now stephanie grisham, former trump white house press secretary. so stephanie, i want to give some context when that reporter said, where's melania terry, who's sitting here, said that reporter has said that too. >> trump every single day. >> every single day, that has been yelled as he's walked in that courtroom. >> do you think it bothers him to hear reporters asking where's melania and also times, where's ivanka, the two who are noticeably never there? oh, absolutely. i know it bothers him that kind of thing would bother him if it misses trump wasn't at some event and it was really noted, he would definitely bring it up with her. so i'm sure in this context, it's definitely really

bothering him. >> so there's a source close to the trump campaign telling cnn that it's possible that ivanka and jared could make a joint appearance? before the verdict. >> we're also hearing ivanka specific concerns about her kids, awareness of the case because they're older now and obviously at the heart of it is their grandfather sleeping with a porn star. do you think ivanka and her father have actually talked about this in any sort of an honest way. stephanie i imagine there have been conversations, but i don't know about how honest we're gonna get. i'm sure she has said, i just want to keep the kids out of this, but more of a not not about the porn star angle, but just, you know, i don't want them to realize what's happening to you, father i think that would be the way she would she would stay it yeah. it's she would spin it. it doesn't surprise me that she's not there. and as i've talked many, many times, of course, doesn't surprise me that meloni is not there. this family is really focused on optics. they are always focused on optics. and so i know that today they think they're showing this for some are there and that's good for the

optics. and then of course, the boys got to go out and shout over each other and talk about how horrible this is. but i think that meloni and avant-garde both thinking of their own optics, and they haven't been here the whole time. i'm just not sure showing up now would do anything but cause more speculation. >> i mean, do you think there's any chance that melania shows up. i mean, obviously at the heart of this is something i know you've talked extensively about and she's she has strong feelings and it was a humiliating incident the way the whole thing happened and was covered for her. nonetheless, for bringing their certainly does make a huge statement in his favor there's i would be absolutely floored if she showed up. there's just no way and again, she hasn't shown up this whole time now. and so in her mind, i think she would think that she was giving or even look weak to suddenly show up. now, it's hard for me to explain what that is. i imagine what her way of thinking would be because i'm sure the campaign has continued and you'd ask if she would show up. i'm sure he's asked a couple of times for it to show up. i'm sure it's crossed her mind, but at this point, i

would absolutely be florida if she showed up. >> all right. well, stephanie, thank you very much. always great to see you and thank you. next are breaking news continues live coverage of the closing arguments, which are going on. you can see right now on your screen that is live reporting from our reporters who are in the courtroom and if trump is convicted, what will life be like for him? new york's former corrections and probation commissioner is next so. what's the guides as his 547, but that's all working that's really needs to pay. >> we're gonna get into what's known alone. >> her say. >> you're a valued customer sensitive. we can go in the window meanwhile at a vrbo when other vacation rentals leave you hanging, try one where you can reach a human in about a minute white writers, you can have those colors on in here

you'd have to kill me to get this jacket off don't want any trouble here. and i'll delete it. >> what about the bar on it we gotta go we've done scale and it worked writers. >> were your daughter only beaters june 21st, red hot deal days are here at verizon, get our biggest deals of the season, only until may 29, get a bundle of your choice on us from any of our top brands. so you'll get a free phone and a smartwatch and a tablet yep. >> all three on us plus checkout tons moore a great deals it's red hot deal days at verizon, hurrian, it's only until you may 29 new central menopause supplements help

unpause life when symptoms posit with a multivitamin plus hot flash support daily z for quality sleep and an extra for focus and clarity. centrum powered by clinically studied ingredients we know it's going to be a big change, but it's the right thing to do. for all of us. >> it's just your mother and i went different things, which is why we got sling tv so we can watch live and free tv on one app that's right. >> dad gets live sports and news and i get my reality shows. and when we don't want to pay your mom and i can still get hundreds of channels for free. thing is really keeping this family together. >> you have no idea. i have no idea. >> imagine making premium cocktails at the touch of a button, introducing artesian simply insert the capsule select your strength and enjoy shop for dad and give $50 laugh at parties and.com slash dad ocd is more than what you see

on tv. >> and in the movies, it comes with unrelenting intrusive images, thoughts, and urges. if you have ocd and need help, you a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today!

you feel the wind five good things listen wherever you get your podcasts breaking news, prosecution still continuing the closing argument, joshua steinglass, the prosecutor, right now, talking about pecker, and you put the campaign first trying to make this tie that this was to further a campaign finance violation in the trump hush money trial here in new york, the prosecution right now is nearly five hours into its closing. arguments were supposed to be done by 8:00. we'll see here in these next few minutes if they actually conclude and obviously john glass is trying to convince the jury to convict us president for crime for the first time ever, while it may be unlikely trump would serve time behind bars due to factors like his age and he's a first-time offender. trump's like as life as he knows it will likely never be the same if he's

convicted because this is of course a felony in front. now, martin horns turn former corrections and probation commissioner for new york city. martin, i'm glad to see you again and now here we are in these final hours days of this trial of verdict coming and a historic way, whichever way it goes. if convicted, there are two types of probation. i understand donald trump could get unsupervised, which i know you've said it's sort of like the honor system or supervised based on the usual protocols. what what does it look like for donald trump well, i'm not sure i understand your question i mean, which would he gives distinct difference? well there's no way for. me to predict which he would get i that's not a question that i can answer. i'm sorry. >> okay. well, let me ask it to you this way. if he gets unsupervised, obviously his life won't change very much. it would seem because that's the honor system. >> what are supervised probation if that were the adoption if convicted that judge merchan goes with what would that look like well,

assuming that he is treated like every other individual who gets probation, which i would hope would be the case he would have to come in and meet with a probation officer. initially provide a great deal of information about his personal so living situation he would given his age and his criminal history, probably be considered a low-risk probation or and in new york city placed in what's called a reporting track. >> and individuals in the reporting track do not actually report to a live probation officer. >> they visit periodically perhaps as infrequently as once a month to a kiosk typically located in the probation office entranceway. that's much like an atm. and after identifying themselves answered a series of

questions about where they're living, where they're working, whether they've had any encounters with law enforcement and whether or not they need to speak with the probation officer the computer system, it cross-references. of course, the city in the state criminal history records. so it knows if the individual has been arrested most individuals are subject to periodic drug testing that might not be a requirement in this case. but if it were there's sort of randomly generated notice to report for a urine tests. >> can actually one question, sorry, just to jump in, but on that kiosk, does he have to show up in person or donald trump's gonna be going into do that, or would someone be able to do that as behalf and his case no. >> you have to do it in person. and there's the system uses a biometric identifier to determine that it's actually you would how would this affect? >> again, if this is the case, you're talking about supervised probation, he's a

presumptive gop nominee for president he's going to campaign rallies across the country. >> he's going to mar-a-lago bedminster, all the things he would ordinarily du. can you do all of those things? >> he, can do them with the permission of the probation agency so let's talk, first of all, about florida and mar-a-lago if he wishes to relocate there? he would have to request that the probation agency transfer the supervision of his probation to a probation agency and florida, and there's an interstate compact that provides for that, but it takes some time for that to happen typically, an individual who wishes is to travel outside the jurisdiction even if it's only two new jersey from new york city has to obtain the permission of the probation agency now, once an individual has been on probation for a period of time, and the agency

feels that they know the individual, they may give them a continuing variant and so our permission to leave the jurisdiction. but if he were going to fly off to another state wisconsin, arizona, he would have to get explicit permission from the probation agents. >> just amazing to think about vitamin when you're talking about a person who is a presumptive nominee for a party and could in fact back be the next president as well as a former martin. thank you very much. i'm glad to see you again and i appreciate all of that. i want to go back to paula reid right now, though, because 7505 just under the wire, paula, it appears are they wrapping are they done? >> it does appear that the prosecution has finally wrapped up its closing arguments after roughly five hours and the judge did suggest he was going to cut them off but 8:00. so coming in just under the wire and here, joshua steinglass, he actually thanked the jury for their time and he said, i apologize for trading brevity

for thoroughness he produced rehash the entire case over the past five hours, but or and he concluded is closing by saying, quote, the name of the game was concealment. and all roads lead inescapably to the man that benefited the most the defendant, former president donald j. trump. he also said that trump has a right to a fair trial and the prosecution has the burden to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt course, wrapping this up in front of the boss, the district attorney, alvin bragg, has been present. old de for closing arguments. aaron underscoring just how significant he's closing arguments are in this historic case and tomorrow, the judge has about an hour of instructions for the jury, and then it will begin their deliberations alright. >> paula, thank you very much. and my panel back with me. mark amira, the jury, not getting instructions tonight stands out to you yeah. >> i think they should have gotten son because now they've got my example like a cake and the frosting and they don't know what to do with it because daily hurdles information we have at least give them the

definition of reasonable doubt the standards they rules for deliberation to wait until you you're everything before you make a decision, de listen to the other jurors first. i know that he'll do it in the morning, but why not spend another five or ten minutes with just that quick don't forget, don't start yet. and i think he should have and ryan, what do you make that? >> i mean, i guess there's something you're gonna go home is one of those jurors and without the kind of constraints in which you're supposed to be putting your thinking you're gonna be thinking and you're going to form opinions based on what you heard. >> i think it'd be difficult for the judge to communicate enough information for them our to do it, i guess. >> yeah. and it's not just that the prosecution went for five hours, but they went for five hours into the evening. about 8:00 at night in new york city so it's really pressing the patients and the endurance of the jurors to be able to listen to all that. and then on top of that, listen to instructions that they need to retain for the next day, i think would be asking much too much of them. >> so we're just told 10:00 a.m. joey there to be there

tomorrow and they get an hour of instructions i can only imagine they would. i don't want to use the word blanche since that's the name of that. but i'm going like you would literally say, wait, it's going to take me an hour to get my instructions. i thought i was just supposed to do guilty or innocent know, there's a lot the judge has to get through with respect to what the legal standards are, how they apply, what the law is, et cetera. and i think mark raises a very good luck. merit raises very good point with garten giving them some guidance tonight. but then i'm an accord with ryan. they're tired. they'd been through a long day and i just don't think you get their attention. i think tomorrow they'll be fresh. the know what they have to do, they will have heard all the facts. now it is their duty to apply those facts to the law and render a verdict. all right. so in the courtroom tomorrow, obviously, you'll be you'll be there. so 10:00 a.m. they come in they get the instructions, and then terry, what happens and then they go out to deliberate and the rest is up america room. they're in a room. they're talking to each other. if they have questions, they'll send notes one thing that judge does do every evening though, is he gives a little instruction, don't talk about the case. i'm sure he did something like that

tonight to write. so they're not let's start deliberating until tomorrow once they hear the instructions and those instructions will be detailed long and boring, and they'll talk about the law and they'll deliberate and we'll see how long time because ryan, there's 34 counts, even though i understand it's it's it's often a signature here. a signature here, by definition, they have to get organized right? so this quick 45-minute verdict, which i know the trump team had thought would be obviously very bad for them. it would seem very difficult to imagine that just because of the sheer number of counts i'm not sure because the 34 cancer almost like the same count, 34 times. it's almost like every chair do you think it is, but it could be fast as possible. it's possible wow. all right. well, thank you all very much. i appreciate it. good to see you and tomorrow we'll see what we get thanks for joining us are breaking news coverage continues now with anderson i'm natasha bertrand at the pentagon. >> and this is cnn closed captioning brought to you by in vet help call 18071 1020. do you have an invention idea but don't know what