well, this could also be an indication of permafrost releasing methane, which is harder to see this invisible gas, but it's up to 80 times more potent as a heat trapping gas than than carbon dioxide the worry about the arctic, which is warming four, four times faster than the rest of the planet, sort of uncork in this methane bomb has long been one of those domino's was tipping points that climate scientists have worried about right now. >> but in the meantime, in the near term, these waterways means so much in terms of tourism, in terms of survival for indigenous tribes and others who rely on these fisheries for healthy, these can be toxic in many cases at the levels get too high of an orange rust there changing not only the color, but the whole biology and ecology of these systems right now. so another alarming red flag hey, what's happening in the climate crisis yeah, thanks for putting this together and explaining it so

well, bell, it's great to see you. >> thank you so much. >> i knew our have seen a new central starts now good, morning, everyone. i'm standing outside the manhattan criminal court. this is cnn special live coverage of the criminal case against donald trump. it's day is the day the jury gets the case. a case that began 44 days ago with jury selection. today, the jury deliberations begin in just about one. our court will open here. the judge will instruct the jury, then they will go behind closed doors and how long it takes. we just do not no, 34 counts against the former president charged with falsifying documents all to coverup payments to stormy daniels to influence the 2016 election. prosecutors say this

is a case about election fraud. i do understand we're seeing pictures from outside trump tower, donald trump will leave his home their head down here. he has been speaking before he heads into the core or i do have to say today, if he speaks before going in, it could be particularly interesting. this could be one of the last times we hear from donald trump before there is a verdict, the next time you hear from him, it is possible. he could be a convicted felon or the converse there. he could be acquitted of criminal charges, either way, this is unprecedented territory with me here cnn is brynn gen gingras, who has been here since the beginning of the trial and we'll be here today to witness history. >> yeah. wednesday is actually are usually a dark de run your turn dark. dark today here and they're ready and willing thank to come those jurors to start their deliberations. they stayed late last night for those closing arguments, a marathon of closing arguments and again, getting started at 10:00 this morning. that's when the judge just going to read

the jury instructions. that is of course, how they're meant to interpret the law as it applies to all this evidence that they have heard over the last several weeks is such a critical part of this process and is right before those jurors go behind closed doors and begin those deliberations, seven men, five women, the six alternates are gonna be in a separate area of the courthouse while those its main 12 jurors deliberate what we also understand during this process, what's going to happen today is that donald trump, his defense team will also be inside the courthouse, but not in the court room, waiting to see are there any notes that come forward, any questions about all that evidence that they're reviewing or is there a verdict that comes out today? we obviously don't know that answer, but it's going to be an eventful day. of course, you actually noted that there was a lot more security around here today, and it does feel that way there are certainly more bert barricades that we saw that were brought in yesterday sort of set up around this courthouse area preparing for policy sibley, any protests that could come if a verdict does come, we do know that the courthouse security is in touch with the nypd as they have been

throughout this entire process. but should a burden to come down are reporting is that there'll be a communication again, that one is there and there might be more personnel, even more so than what we're seeing today brought to this area to prepare for anything that could come? >> yeah. lot of security, a lot of press here. i would say street sweepers gone by three times. so the cleanest city block in all of manhattan to say the least, or ai brynn grass. thank you very much. as we said history will be made here shortly with me now, cnn legal analyst jennifer rodgers and michael moore. michael brynn was talking about these jury instructions. i had a chance to talk to jen about a little while ago. i want to know what you are listening four here, because this hour of discussion between the judge and the jury before they deliberated it's just crucial it is. >> i'm glad to be with all over the morning. >> this is an important time and this is the time that the jury actually will hear from the judge who by all accounts, has a good relationship and rapport with them and he'll tell them what the law is. >> he's going to basically say, here's the law in this state and a aud to apply to

these facts. and so your decision your discussions needs to center around how to the facts fit the law. if they do and so he'll talk about things like reasonable doubt. >> that's going to be important. we'll talk about the issues of dealing with a ten and what intent is required one he may talk about whether or not a motive is actually required. you may get into explaining whether or not there has to be some more indication about this second violation or the second law that was to be violated. and we'll also get to hear a little bit about what he talks about witness credibility an impeachment, and how it's within their provenance alone to make decisions about who they believe, how much they believe, what they want to discount something that said and how they may receive or accept evidence that did not come in. so missing evidence, what they should do with that. so he's he's got a script. these are pretty standard charges by enlarge and criminal cases. they're not crafted just for donald j. trump, but these are a lot of these charges have been rabbit

thousands of times across the country. >> and so we will see, but it's a crucial time because it is a time that the jury will be listening to take instruction from the court in gen in reviewing in my head what happened in closing arguments, the three hours and closing arguments from the fence, the nearly five hours of closings from the prosecution, two things jumped out at me. that offense. all about reasonable doubt. and michael cohen just hammering that point home, it made me think that that could be a big part of the jury instructions. and as far as the prosecution goes, they really seem to be focused on the notion that donald trump cause the documents to be falsified and also they focus quite a bit on what they see as the election fraud, the clear violations of election laws why those focuses well, you're absolutely right, john, that those are the focus is in this because they have different jobs here, right? >> the defense's job is just to poke holes. >> they don't need to go

through all of the evidence at trial. >> in fact, they don't want to do that. they're just trying to say listen, if you don't find this one thing that means reasonable doubt, that's why the emphasis on michael cohen, if you don't believe michael cohen, that is reasonable doubt. that's what todd blanche said over and over. the prosecutors have a different job, right? because they carry the burden to prove every single element of the events beyond a reasonable doubt. so in addition to answering the issues at the defense is raising, they have to go through all of the evidence and marshall at all for the jurors and tell them why they've met their burden here. that's why you see prosecutors going on longer because they're rebutting, but also putting this all together for the jurors. i mean, as a prosecutor, when you end, you want the jury to think three things really you want them to think. wow, they really answered all of my questions. they really rebutted all of what defense said. and man, there's a lot of evidence here. so you have to accomplish all of those things. is the prosecution, which is why you saw such a long summation yesterday michael, i'm going to

ask you an unknowable question with unknowable answers here. what happens inside the jury room after jury instructions that jury goes back into the roman, then one and i've had the great chance to participate in a lot of mock jury. >> so you do watch it you know, sort of been a practice run, get ready for a trial you'll see them go back in the jury room. there'll be a discussion about who will be there for person who the lead, a spokesperson to the court. they'll they'll have a moment to just kind of relax, get things in order pull their notes out, take a restroom break. these are normal things and then somebody will start the discussion it may be like, well, why don't we take an initial loop and see sort of where everybody is. and then we can begin to talk about what we thought about each side. it's presentation are the evidence that came into the case and they might go around the room. >> we'd be happy if you get to lawyers on this jury. >> so this is something that there'll be accustomed to and there'll be thinking about needing to respect the opinions of everybody who's in the jury room.

>> and you may see if one of those lawyers leads, you might say them suggest that they go around the room and say get me what you thought. what did you think? what were the strong points in and these jurors, i imagine will be repeating some of the arguments much that they heard yesterday as it supports their various positions. and that's really what to close an argument is vows to give them ammunition in the jury room. those people who make sort of your your ambassador to the rest of the jury panel. and so they'll do that. i don't expect we'll see something two quick. i think that this is a serious case. this jury hi and attention. i know it's a serious case as it relates to three, at least. and so at some point they'll they'd continue to take a boat and ultimately, i have some questions come to the court, but then we'll see as they get closer to the end of the day where they were what questions gen. rodgers, were you the most as a prosecutor from the jury? >> well listen anything that suggests that they're buying

into the defense's theories, right? so let's say they come out with a question that says, if we don't believe michael cohen, is it? possible to still convict that would give you pause, right? any requests for evidence that seems to favor the defense. like i want to hear the cross of my coco in this part of the cross that would give me pause. but what you have to remember is kind of what michael just said. sometimes they're just using these things to convince each other right? so let's say it's 11 one for conviction and that one juror says, well, i still have a doubt. i want to hear this piece of the cross back and they say fine, let's ask for that. let's go so in adhered again. so they sometimes use their questions and requests for evidence to convince each other because that's what it's all about once they go back there. so as much as prosecutors and the defense like to read into what's coming out of the jury room. it's a little bit dangerous for that reason because you never know exactly why they're asking whether they all have doubts or maybe just one does reading the tea

leaves, jennifer rodgers, michael moore, thanks so much to both of you. >> gate. >> we've new reporting about the phone call to police from samuel alito's neighbor and how it is linked to the controversial flag was seen flown outside the supreme court. justice it's just this home and federal investigators are making moves that indicate a possible indictment of sean diddy combs could be in the works and cnn has exclusive new reporting on this president biden, headed to battleground, pennsylvania today, his new effort to reach out and wind back or group of his winning 2020 coalition that are voters not. >> so certain to be with him this time around one of the most active you can't control a tornado. what kinds of interventions can we design go inside the store? >> premiere of london earth with liam freiburg sunday at nine on cnn first time. no

biggie. >> we recommend to exfoliate the night before when you come in for relax, don't be nervous. come for wax teens before game smoother skin, less ingrown hair, less irritation in now, in under 15 minutes, then our products, they're amazing. i want deodorant right now. >> and not only is your skin going to think, you're gonna think us what are you waiting for? >> get your first wacc free today? >> and america's beverage companies are bottles might still look the same, but they can be remade. >> in a whole new way. >> thanks to you. >> were getting bottles back and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic, new bottles made using no new plastic you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. >> and when we get more of them back, we can use less new plastic bottles are to be remade let's get started no.

where's your mask? >> i really tried sleeping with it, everybody, but i'm done struggling. now i sleep with inspire. inspire, inspires a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with just a click of this button, a breton no mass move just sleep but you inspire sleep apnea, innovation, learn more and view important safety information at inspires leap.com it wasn't always like this dryness meet sex painful and awkward. >> but reveries, vaginal moisturizer brought back the spark i couldn't move like this with vaginal dryness, reveries, hyaluronic acid is super moisturizing. >> so i can do this again the cross seven letters. >> it's hormone free. >> there's no messy applicator, so it fits our routine reverie. >> thousands of women have restored their vaginal moister, join them at reverie.com only

purples gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other matters. cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. memory foam. devin come close, get your best sleep guaranteed, safe up to $800 during our memorial day sale visit purpose hello.com or store near you my name age braden i always five years old when i came to change. >> how trained short-run ganim story shell and then having these headaches that when i go away my mom, she was crying what they said, they're saying hedge brain cancer it was your worst fear coming to life watching your child grow up is the dream of every parent you can join the battle to save the lives of kids leg braden by supporting st. >> jude children's research hospital, families never receive a bill from st jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food. so they can focus on helping their child who live

what they've done for me, my son, my family sorry life is a gift especially for a child battling cancer call. or go online and helps save the lives of children lag braden now, i know 11 years old. >> we were actually doing the checkup for my brain, and they they saw something in my throat thyroid cancer it was heartbreaking to find out he has canceled again, but we knew who we have behind us it gives me hope you can make a difference. join with your credit their debit card for only $19 a month. and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt without st. jude or its donors we would have been in a bad place these kids. >> they've done nothing wrong in the world finding a cure for

childhood cancer it means everything helps st. >> jude give kids with cancer a chance. >> in an. infinite time loop we save. the world the lazarus project, you cesar, do night on tnt there are new details coming out about the controversial flag seen outside supreme court justice samuel alito's home the new york times is now reporting neighbors called the police in february of 2021 after they saw after they say that they were harassed by alito's wife and a dispute over yard signs. this all started earlier this month when the times reported on a picture appearing to show an upside-down american flag flying outside of their home. just days before for president joe biden's inauguration, the upside down flag is a symbol used by election deniers in

2020. seen as joan biskupic is joining us right now with some more on this. joan, can you walk us through now this new reporting? >> share kate, it's good to see you. let's step back for a minute and consider why we even care about this neighborhood squabble from three years ago at the center of it, is this important symbol of the stop, the steal movement from january 6, and the protests over president joe biden's valid when at the polls in 2020 and all that donald trump did it, donald trump and his supporters did to protest that. the question was that we were concerned about starting with some original new york times reporting was why the alito family was flying an upside down us flag. that was a symbol of the stop the steal. now, justice alito told the new york times that the flag was flown in protest by his wife to some neighbors having nothing to do with january 6 or protesting the election. so this new

timeline from the new york times is kinda adds another piece. and again, kate, the reason we even care about this is the justice has laid out in terms of potentially his own powers in position. and the fact that right now the justices are considering two important cases arising from the events of january 6. one of course, is donald trump's claim of immunity from any criminal liability for election subversion. and the other involves whether january 6, riders who stormed the capital would be liable for an obstruction of official proceeding chart. so that's why we care the new york times new reporting involves a recording that was made by neighbors of the alitos when they complained after a confrontation with martha-ann alito and they apparently called the fairfax county police and we're talking about how she wouldn't been yelling at them about their anti-trump signs one of the quotes that was in the times report was

these neighbors saying to the fairfax county police somebody in a position of authority needs to talk to her and make her stop. and apparently, the police officers heard saying we can't we can't investigate just yelling, please call us. when an event is actually taking place. but the reason this comes into play now is that that incident actually occurred according to the new york times report in february 2021 one not january 2021, which just raises a conflict about why was that flag even hoisted in the first place, wasn't in response to these neighbors or was it more accurately conveying some political statement? now, cnn has not verified the tape recording or this most recent reporting, and we have reached out multiple times to justice alito just trying to get some clarification here, kate, about this incident that has raised so many questions about potential conflicts of interest on the part of justice alito which is what this what this

however, this shakes out what that gets to is the is, is those bigger concerns that the supreme court, it's good to see you, john. thank you very much. we are on verdict watch as the jury in donald trump's criminal trial will get the case this morning after weeks and weeks of testimony. >> we are keeping an eye hey two, again, every time i turn its cue, the bus queue, the bus and outside of donald trump's apartment. >> and you see one of his sons right there standing by where they're going and to be leaving trump tower and heading down to lower manhattan once again, because it's about to get underway. we're also tracking this major league baseball has a new all time i'm career leader in batting average, but the man who now holds the record retired more than 75 years ago. the history making moves happening with major league baseball today and as we had to break, take a look at these live pictures of a volcano erupting in iceland. >> the eruption is for the

evacuation of the country's famous blue lagoon. blue lagoon geothermal spot and tourist hotspots near tours hots vaud that this is the, this volcano is, this is the volcanoes second time erupting just this year. >> easy for me to say. look at the pictures we're back russia's, we're trying to spy on us we were. >> spying on them saudi friday this is a war, but secret war. secrets and spies, a nuclear game premieres sunday at ten on cnn it's payback time all these years you've worked hard. >> you fixed it, you looked after it maybe it's time for your home to start taking carry you leave invested in our home. we've worked on it. >> we had a whole lot of equity. we just sitting there

get paid down the mortgage invested in your home. i guess you could say your homeowners, you if you're 62 or older and own your home, learn how you can access a portion shanab your home equity to give you cash or reverse mortgage can put more money in your pocket by eliminating your monthly mortgage payments, paying off higher interest credit cards and covering medical costs. >> look aag can show you how are reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you a tax-free cash for almost anything you might need, just eliminate and mortgage payment freed up a lot cash horse i get to go and do what i want when i want hey, aug he customers talked about the counseling they've got along the way. >> so they know how a reverse mortgage works. and how their home could help pay them back when they need it the most. >> i have no worries anymore the fact that we're still in this home means so much. it's done everything for us that we

hoped it would do for us cole now to receive your free no obligation info kit. the kit shows you how to get you the cash you need using your homes equity with a reverse mortgage. find out how your home can start taking care of. you, call 809 942517. >> the worry every single month to make that payment was gone our customers homes are taken care of them maybe your home could do the same for you called aag, the country's number one first mortgage lender in get your free info kit call 800 942517, 800 942517 no application fee if you apply by may 31st at university of maryland global campus, offering online and hybrid courses and lifetime career services learn about for more than 125 degrees and certificates at umg c dot edu phase underwear are period proof and sneeze proof and swept their leak-proof

underwear from knicks, comfy and confident protection that field, just like normal with so many styles and colors to choose from switching his easy at knicks.com there is a 71% chance you could be overpaying for car insurance. that's why experian has a new free tool that can save you money by finding you are best deal and it works experiences are saved an average of $900 per year. >> go to experian.com slash car and stop overpaying for car insurance every day, moore people and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food they're quitting the kibble and kicking the camps and feeding their dogs dog food. that's actually well food developed with that made from real meat and veggies portioned for your dog and delivered right to your door. >> it's smarter healthier pack food, get 50% off yo

$79 at cardia.com or amazon in the stanley cup their class life is on the line right now

to now distractions goodness still feel white guy and i all right, welcome back. standing by outside manhattan criminal court were later this morning, not very long from now, jury deliberations will begin in the criminal case against donald trump while that is going on the man that donald trump is running against for president of the united states, that would be president joe biden is headed to pennsylvania along with vice president kamala harris. let's get right to the white house. cnn's priscilla alvarez is there where are they going? what are they doing and why priscilla while they're gonna make their third is stopped in the city of philadelphia, a crucial city for the president as he tries to clinch that victory in november. >> of course, the president here is trying to sure. up support among black voters. they were critical part of the coalition in 2020 and really

propelled him to victory. but polls have recently shown waiting and doozy asm among this voter block, in particular, including a shift toward his republican rival donald trump. but even more concerning for the campaign is voters just not going to the polls. and so this is a stop and philadelphia where he will be he joined by the vice president to again try to stoke enthusiasm among voters and list off the accomplishments of his administration and try to to outline how it has helped their communities of course, this is part of a months-long effort by the white house. they also commemorated brown v. board of education and also did campaign stops in atlanta. and the president gave a commencement address at morehouse college. so taken together, you can really do you see how the campaign is trying to make more inroads in the black community, knowing how important this vote is going to be for them in november, drawn so personal obviously, i'm standing outside the manhattan criminal court. what plans are

there, if any? for president buying to say anything about this case after there's a verdict? >> while we're waiting to see whether he does. we've heard from sources that he could potentially after a verdict is reached. but even so the campaign is already digging in yesterday in a dramatic reversal, the biden campaign was just outside that courtroom while those closing arguments were underway, where they try to draw that stark contrast between president biden and former president donald trump. this of course, and huge shift from where they've been, where it was really light trolling on fundraising emails. but this was the most outspoken that they have been in york city. so in the location of this hearing now, earlier today, that campaign was asked about how they came to this decision. take a listen to what they had to say last week. we said that we are going to be talking day in and day out about the stakes of the election in the run-up to the first presidential debate on cnn on june 27 in

atlanta this week is about doing exactly that. it's been immediate circus down at the courthouse in manhattan. all of the news media has been posted up running visuals that day in and day out relentlessly, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. and so we use it as an opportunity to directly address the american people about the fundamental threat that donald trump poses to our democracy now the biden campaign maintains that they're not changing their strategy, but clearly john, they're entering a new more aggressive phase of the campaign my personal alvarez at the white house, priscilla, thank you very much. >> just got word. that donald trump has departed trump tower headed down here to manhattan criminal courts safe to assume we could hear from him before court begins today at ten. that is one of the judge will give the jury instructions to the men and women who will decide the fate of donald trump. but it is worth noting down from leaving trump tower perhaps for the last time before he becomes

either a convicted felon or be acquitted of charges, i suppose see there could be a hung jury as well. all that that would likely last beyond today if that were to take place with me. now, cnn political analyst and democratic strategist, maria cardona, also here. jason osborne, former senior adviser to the trump 2016 in campaign. jayson, let me start with you. it is there a separation today between the legal world in the political world, or, or is where i'm standing the center of every university i think anywhere we're trump is its the center of his political world, right? i mean, i think you can't distinguish between the two. and unfortunately, i think for the folks on the opposite side of donald trump in this, is that this case is so confusing they don't really understand. i think the general public don't really understand what is going on in the courthouse. so what they're listening to is the continued rans by donald trump that this is election interference, that this is just the liberals coming after him and trying to

stop him from becoming president in maria cardona to that and tom jason saying that wherever donald trump goes is the center of the universe right now, does that explain? plane why we saw robert de niro here on behalf of the biden campaign yesterday well, i think what you saw yesterday is the biden campaign. >> and one there surrogates going to where the cameras are because that is frankly of smart strategy. and i think what the campaign is doing is not really anything different than what they did on the day that president biden announced for reelection, which is the contrast between what he has done for the country and what he will continue to do for the country focused on economic growth texting. our rights and freedoms protecting our democracy versus donald trump, who showed us what he wants to do if he is elected again. january 6 was just a trial run. and so the contrast between someone who wants to protect our democracy and our constitution. and donald trump

who wants to destroy it, this the place where you are now, john, i think is a perfect fig backdrop for that because it is all about our judicial system, our institutions our democratic institutions, and how one candidate wants to preserve them and strengthen them. and one candidate was to destroy them jayson more minutes away potentially from hearing from donald trump before he walks into that courtroom when the judge will give the jury jury instructions what do you expect him to say? >> i should maybe ask, what would you think would help him in a political campaign? in pain at this moment well, i mean, look at anytime donald trump gets up to speak and in particularly every time that i've seen the clips of him speaking before he goes into the courthouse. >> it's the same rhetoric that he gives, which that isn't a mistake on his part. i don't know if necessarily there are things that i would much rather

him say that speak to how he's going to help this country move forward as opposed to the continued rants about this being a political or election interference trial i think it's as he heads into this k into this, i guess the jury decision i have to assume that he's a little bit nervous, right? i think that he's quite frankly biting on the hope that there is one juror that's going to stick up for them. but again, as you watch, it's kinda hard for all of us outside without having been in the courthouse from day one see what's actually happening. i think it's going to be hard for him to kind of walk out of there without some sort of maybe some vindication for a few of the charges. but some of the other ones not so but it all plays into his argument. i think his argument is unfortunately, in some cases, resonating with the base for one and then to those folks that he needs to come back over to his sayyed from the biden

campaign and in 2020 maria cardona, you have president biden with the vice president going to philadelphia. today, which is it's a city that he won. i think more than 90% of the vote in 2020 in metropolitan philadelphia right now, is this it in mission of underperform? chorman's to date in this campaign with those voters that he needs, particularly minority voters what it is john is a super smart strategy of a candidate and a campaign who understands that they cannot take any single vote for granted. they didn't in 2020 and they're not going to do it this time around either. >> and look the focus on black voters is key as you know, they were part of the backbone of what got him elected him and kamala harris elected in 2020 and they will be the backbone of his reelection. >> yet again. and i think it's important for them to go to philly, to go to all of these places and suburbs to make the

case notch just to black voters, but to the whole coalition that is going to bring together. yet again another victory for president biden. and i think the messaging in terms of what's going going on now with donald trump and what president biden and kamala harris are going to continue to talk about is key because regardless of what happens in this verdict, john president biden and vice president harris are going to continue to make the case that trump is spectacularly guilty of being unfit for office guilty hey, of bringing chaos, confusion, corruption to the oval office. he did so for four years, he will so again, if he's elected and guilty of being horrendous as for every single community in this country. and that will be something that they will underscore from here until election day record jason ours born or thanks to both the view again, donald trump is left top trump tower. >> he will be arriving here in the manhattan criminal court shortly. anticipate hearing

from him before he goes into that courtroom were very shortly a jury will begin deciding his fate, deliberation set to begin in the criminal case of donald trump unprecedented moment in us history, stay with us for a special live governance everyone weekday morning, cnn's five things has what you need to get going with your day. >> it's the five essential stories of the morning in five minutes or less cnn's five things with katie streaming weekdays, exclusively on max. what makes a medicare supplement insurance plan like an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from united unitedhealthcare. a good choice for people on medicare. it's smart for you to have now, i'm 65 and later on for the future you i'm 70. it's really smart. >> hey, look and good. you made a great choice for us with this type of plan. >> see any doctor or visit, any hospital that accepts medicare patients? there are no

networks. >> your health care future. we'll have more freedom i kept her doctor and when i needed to specialists, no referrals needed right? >> bingo. >> in fact, see any doctor anywhere in the us really smart to have when you travel when i visit this little cutie in arizona, my plan goes with me i can't wait don't. >> worry about surprise medical bills either. you'll know upfront about how much your care will cost, and knowing your expenses makes planning your financial future easier i'm glad my husband and i can use our savings to do the things we wanna do i'm glad i don't have to shop for a new plan every year that's right. once you enroll, your coverage is guaranteed for as long as you keep this plan have questions. call unitedhealthcar e now to talk with a licensed insurance agent or producer they know a lot about what makes these plants smart now, and really smart later. or just ask for this free guide, benefits and rates in one place. so it's easy to compare

options here 30 year, 94% of members renew their plan and medicare supplement plans with the aarp name are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp meeting there are high standards of service and quality. so give unitedhealthcare call today and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from united but he'd health care a look at you. >> thanks again for looking out for me we're in this together. >> and aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare smart. now really smart leader. >> when your home needs work, where do you go? angie. angie. >> angie gay man with angie, find top rated certified pros it's in your area. plus compare quotes and pricing to help you get all your jobs done well, find top rated certified pros in your area at angie.com. >> this is a future ma go daddy arrow creates a logo website even social posts in minutes ai hey, i like it who wants to

come see the view future, get your business online in minutes with godaddy arrow, row sparks engineered for the spontaneous, a dual action formula with the active ingredients of viagra and salas faster acting and long-lasting grabbed the moment get started at row.co slash sparks have you ever considered getting a walk-in time? well, look, no further safe steps best offer. just got better. now, when you purchase your brand-new saved stamp walk-in tub, you'll receive a three shower package. >> yes agree. shower package. and if you call today you'll also receive 15 verse in off your entire order now you can enjoy the best of both worlds. the therapeutic benefits of a warm, soothing bath. >> i can help increase mobility relieve pain. >> boost energy, and even sleep or if you prefer, you can take a refreshing shower all in one product hello, now to receive a

brief shower package, was 15% off your brand safe step login tub 100 377026. >> there's never been a better time. that's 18037, 7026 your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. >> you need to hire. >> i need indeed. >> indeed you do. indeed instant match, instantly delivered first quality candidates matching your job description visited d.com slash higher to give your teeth a dentist clean feeling, start with a round brush, had ad power and you've got oral-b round cleans better by surrounding each tooth to remove 100% more flat for a superior clean oral-b brush like a pro were stuck in an infinite time move besides the

lazarus project, you cesar, due night on tnt seen an exclusive. now sources tell cnn federal investigators are preparing to bring accusers of sean diddy combs before a federal grand jury. this is seen as a clear sign the department of justice could be moving to indict him since november combs has been named in eight civil lawsuits, seven directly accusing him of sexual assault, his homes. you recall, were searched by the fbi in march. there's a lot more to this. cnn's elizabeth wagmeister has this new reporting and she's joining us now, lives with how soon could witnesses be brought before the grand jury? and often this testimony this isn't something that we expect to happen immediately based on the sources that i've spoken to, they said that while federal investigators are planning to present this to a grand jury, that nobody has been prepped for testimony yet at this stage, witnesses have been

notified that they could potentially be called to testify in front of a federal grand jury in new york city. but that's where this stands and right now, kate the investigators are still diligently doing their work. they are still calling in people. for questioning they are bringing back some potential witnesses for repeat questioning. i hear from a source that some of these accusers who have filed lawsuits against sean diddy combs have been called in multiple times, and we all remember back in march when two of diddy's homes were rated both in miami and in los angeles, and they see is a lot of evidence, so they are combing through all of this. i have one source telling me that should there be an indictment that federal agents want to ensure that this is bullet proof that is the word that they use. so not something that we expect to happen immediately, but as you said, this is a clear indication that this incident best estimation is moving along and in a substantial way. >> what is next in this

investigation that you're picking up and also for sean combs you know there's a lot that could be coming next. >> of course this investigation will continue. they will continue to question people before they potentially have them testify in front of a grand jury. but the other big piece that sean diddy combs is facing is these mounting lawsuits. remember he is facing eight lawsuits. seven. which directly accused him of sexual assault in the big question remains, willis domino effect continue. will there be more accusers that can potentially come forward we hear that in addition to the accusers who have already filed these sexual assault civil lawsuits that investigators have brought an additional people. so that's something we're keeping an eye on great reporting as always. >> thank you so much, elizabeth still for us, move over babe ruth, major league baseball has some new record holders will take you, will bring that to you russia for trying to spy on

us, we were spying on them i'm sorry, frank the secret was secrets in spies. >> a nuclear game. premier sunday at ten on cnn every day, moore people are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food developed with made from real meat and veggies portioned for your dog and delivered right to your door. it's smarter healthier, pet food are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try next. makers of the world comfy as wireless bras for revolutionary support without under wires and sizes up to a g can find your new things if are brought today at next.com, you know, your car insurance rates just kind of creep up experian compares your current car insurance coverage with over 40 top providers, and it's tailored just for you. i just saved over 900 bucks when it comes to car insurance, we

do the work. >> you save the money free had experienced.com slash car hi, it's christina again. i'm here to tell you about an all new special offer from my friends at jacuzzi bathroom model that you don't want to miss. you already know jacuzzi has been making water so great for more than 65 years. and now they're bringing you this special tv offer. were waving all installation costs and postponing all payments for up to one year too cozy bathroom model has a design you'll love at a price you can afford and best of all, they can install it. and as little as one day with no stress and no mess. are you ready to see your new shower here it is it's fabulous. >> taking a shower had gone from being a joy to being a burden afraid i would fall. i called and just one day i had a shower. i could feel safe in no matter your situation, jacuzzi bathroom model has a solution for you from a safer, easy entry shower with features like grab bars and a custom seats to

keep you feeling comfortable and independent at home to a stunning family bath, or how about a luxurious upgrade? the timeless design that will look great for years to come. plus, they're built to last with a lifetime warranty from an iconic brand. you know, you can try to do with done in the same de we did not have to wait absolutely perfect that's exactly what i was dreaming of. >> if you haven't already experienced what jacuzzi bathroom model can do for you. your family and your home don't wait any longer. now is the best time to call. it's never been easier. take advantage of this special be offered today. >> call or go on mine, right now for a limited time offer, only weeks left to get waived installation and no interests and no payments for up to one year go-to jacuzzi bathroom model.com, or call 805 163978.

>> that's 805, 163978 call now and university of maryland global campus, getting a bachelor's degree doesn't have to mean starting from scratch. >> here, you can earn up to 90 undergraduate credits for relevant experience. wha

series of steps. against superstars three minutes. >> that makes him better for commodity ready to play his dallas, ready to find gain for the western conference final presented by geico is ovaries begins tonight is seven 30 on tnt all right. >> rigueur news. donald trump's motorcade has, as you can see it right here, just arrived at the manhattan courthouse. i'm just going to listen in for a second and try to hear what what is being shattered there you have it. moving on through new york and he's green, hadn't into that courthouse and we'll see that

what is now become very familiar inside the courthouse a shot and we will see if donald trump will be speaking as he is heading into court just on q well done control room. and i once he gets into the courtroom, judge, juan merchan will be giving instructions to the jury in his criminal hush money trial and after that, the case is in the hands of the jury. and with that is also the fate of the former president and current prices presidential candidate joining us right now, former federal prosecutor, jennifer rodgers, criminal defense attorney joey jackson, both cnn legal analysts. so closing arguments. let's just set the stage because it's all really about to get underway. >> closing arguments lasted a combined what was it? >> seven hours? jennifer's long time. a long time into the evening, but reports from inside the courtroom where that the jurors they remained attentive, at least for the majority of the time. >> how does either sayyed interpret that? of course, you can't do too much with it, but how does either side interpret and from what you heard in closings yesterday, who do you think which side was most

effective with the time that they had? >> well, i think they're happy and grateful that jurors appeared to be listening, right? because this is the only chance you get to argue to the jury and they don't get to hear it again, even if they come back and say we'd like to hear this part of the closing. the judge will say no, it's not evidenced. they can't hear it once they're back in the jury room. so if they think that their arguments got through, i'm sure they're happy i think that the prosecutor has got the better of the closing their job is not only to make their arguments and try to bat down the defense's arguments. but to marshal the evidence for the jury, they need to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt and so on. so they have more to do. the defense really just has to pick the issues that they think might conjure regional now for the jury, and i think prosecutors did a better job, more deliberate. i thought todd blanche missed some opportunities there and went on a little too long i'm bringing up the stormy daniels thing again, why even raise the whole stormy daniels credibility issue that just reminds jurors of that whole cme side of

things. and so i thought prosecutors did it a little bit better, but who knows? >> but still i like to hear from you. it's better than any any interpretation that i have when you go into joe word choice as you'd like, why bring up stormy daniel's is one question that the jennifer's raising, but it word choice is something that you always wonder because every word matters every second matters. every minute or hour as it, as it turned out when it came to closings, the defense's relentless focus on michael cohen continuing through closing arguments i think john said it we obviously it is true if john berman said it, the defense called michael cohen a liar 78 times times during closings is that the right move you think it was? >> so here's what happens. keiko morning, what ends up happening is that you use what you have, right? the facts are what they are in any case, just as the prosecution said, we didn't go to the witness store. right. and we didn't get michael cohen at the same time. no one goes to the witness store to create the facts and

exhibits. you have the facts as you find them. and i think one of the critical issues that the defense would have the jury believe right. is that you cannot convict unless you believe michael cohen now, whether that's true is an open question. i think prosecutor certainly did a lot to corroborate michael cohen with respect to other witnesses who told the same narrative and with respect to saying, are you serious? of course, you can convict even if you don't believe michael cohen because there's so much else and we call that drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence. sometimes it's not direct evidence, but there's something called circumstantial evidence. and boy, is that a plenty? right? so that's what prosecutors did, but ultimately, i think the defense used what was very important, which was to brand this is the michael cohen case. he's on trial. and if you can't trust him yet, i cannot vote to convict. and so they use that i think a great effectiveness, how effective it was, is ultimately in the hands of and right before it goes to the hands of the jury, it is the

judge's task always to give the jury the instructions such were told will take about an hour. >> what are you looking for in these instructions? >> how important are these instructions? well, there really, really important, right? >> this is what the jury has to follow. i'm looking for a little bit more clarity on how the judge is going to describe the enhancing crime to them, right. so we know the elements of falsification of business records and then the judge is going to tell them that if they find that that was done to conceal or to commit another crime, that it gets enhanced to a felony, right. so the way that the judge describes that, and then the way that the judge describes what that crime could be is really important. so we know that he's going to say that there was a federal election crime that they contributed too much money to the campaign. the way that the judge describes all of that and how simple it seems to the jury as it comes out of the judge's mouth, is really, really important because jurors have to understand that and it gets a little bit convoluted as you know, because for weeks now we've been talking about what

exactly is the enhancing crime and how does it all work? and so i think that is really the most critical thing. and judge in the judge from my experiencing covering trial judgments, a lot of time trying to get making sure this how the war, how to explain it, how the wording comes across to explain it to the jury. >> why does it take of an hour? >> because what happens, kate, is you have to go through the totality of the law all right. remember the process the jury is, they had to decide what is factually accurate and what's factually not. the jury can disregard a testimony outright. they could accept portions of testimony, so they had to find is a fact the judge ultimately is the one who is the authority on the law. and that's why you hear objection. sustained. objection. i can overrule their allowed to say what's admitted, what's not admitted before the jury. and based upon that process, now that you have the facts as the jurors, what do we do with them? and that's where the jury instructions comment play. what is reasonable doubt, by the way, let me define it for you. what is direct evidence? let me tell

you what that is. let me tell you about this thing called circumstantial evidence. what does that mean? and so it's very important kate, to really hone down on what it is. and then of course, right to jen's very good point. what is this other crime and how do we apply that? should we find there was another crime? and what is falsification? did donald trump have to himself prepare these ledgers or is it enough that he was involved in the preparation, meaning, write that he aid and abet that in any way. so all of that stuff is so important and ultimately that's what the jurors are going to have to decide and going into this what the judge is going to be laying out. >> are there potential surprises? are both the defense and the end prosecutors already already read in on this what we're talking about that no surprises for that. they've had the charge since thursday. right. and it is so buy the book. i mean, they will have it printed in front of them. what i used to do because you're so shy, you're so tired. it's

like all you can do is kinda follow along so you're literally just kind of watching adrenaline rushes who is passed down has happened. so yeah everyone is just following along, making sure that they're delivered correctly every once in a while, a judge will misspeak. he's reading and you say the wrong word or something and then someone will point it out so that he can fix it because it's a huge issue for appeal if there is a conviction, one of the big his reasons that convictions get overturned is that the jury instructions are deemed to have been incorrect. so you really want to take your time with them, make sure they're right, and then make sure they're delivered properly. >> yeah. well, while all of the action and the important action will be happening as the jurors will be deliberating, just laying out how important just the hour before and what we're gonna here in the courtroom is going to be as well. guys, stick with me. >> thank you so much for joining us. this is cnn news central, cnn special live coverage of donald trump's criminal trial and the big moment that the jury will get the case if begins next the

sirens are going off the tornado here. you cannot out swim you cannot outrun it really is a terrifying experience it is the stuff of nightmares just hear it and feel it is my throat were buried i'm thinking i'm going to die and i thought that was it along with earth, with liev schreiber, premiere sunday at nine on cnn thanks through every vaginal dryness doesn't get between us anymore six across seven letters. it's hormone free. there's no messy applicator, so it fits our routines rubbery. thousands of women have restored their vaginal moister, join them at reverie.com i was just showing ship was to watch day my always crying i was sad i was diagnosed with rob no miles should coma once we got the

first initial hit, it was just straight tears sickness and your stomach? >> just don't want to get about a bad that statement. >> well, you got to look on the bright side of things. tell me what the bright side of childhood cancer is it's a long road. >> it's hard but st. >> joe does gotten us through st. jude children's research hospital works day after day to find cures and save the lives of children with cancer and other life threatening diseases thanks to generous donors like you, families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment travel housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child without all those donations. st. jude would not be able to do all of the exceptional work that i do for just $19 a month. >> you help us continue the life-saving research and treatment. >> these kids need and no

matter if it's a big business or just the grandmother that donates. >> once a month they are changing people's lives and that's a big deal doing with your debit or credit card right now. >> and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt that you can proudly wear to show your support our families forever grateful for donations big and small, because it's completely changed our lives and it's given us a second chance st. you, it's not going to stop until every single kid gets that chance to walk out on the doors of the hospital cancer-free please. >> don't wait. call go online or scan the qr code below, right now today at america's beverage companies are bottles might still look the same, but they can be remade in a whole new way. thanks to you. we're getting bottles back and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic, new bottles made using

no new plastic we'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. >> and when we get more of them back we can use less new plastic bottles are day to be

>> honor, you got this one on life. kim ban, eric. >> i wanted the iron claw no screening exclusively on macs inside this new york courthouse 12 jurors are about to do what no jury country has ever done before deliberate criminal charges against someone who has served as president of the united states and is wanting for that same office. >> again the defendant donald trump, is just arrived here who did not speak to cameras. >> notably as he typically does after six lawn weeds on trial,

though, it's tough, is walking into that room with his legal team in tow. he has now on the cost of mourning his fate whatever it is that the jury decides i'm kaitlin collins and new york, and i'm jake tapper in washington. you are watching special cnn live coverage of donald trump's hush money cover-up, trial court is reconvening, right? >> and soon seven men and five women will begin jury deliberations with huge stakes, not only for mr. trump, but also for the 2024 presidential election in for the entire united states of america. but first judge juan were sean will present the jurors with carefully crafted instructions that will frame their discussions in the jury room and potentially helped shape the verdict. the judge will walked jurors through the charges against mr. trump, 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and the legal issues that they must consider in deciding whether they find the former president of the united states guilty. it's in the jurors hands as they meet

behind closed doors and review key questions from the trial, including was michael cohen's testimony credible? was the alleged cover-up of the payment to stormy daniel's and unlawful effort to help the 2016 trump presidential campaign has the prosecution proven that this misdemeanor was carried out in the service of a completely different crime and have they done so beyond a reasonable doubt there is so much to consider in these truly historic deliberation. cnn's team of reporters and producers inside the courthouse are going to bring you constant updates to capture all the drama of the day kaitlan. we are in the final critical moments of this trial yeah, jake, we are. >> and one thing to note about the final moments of this trial that's interesting is once the judge gives the jury these instructions, which he has set to do, he said it'll take about an hour as he explains to them what they're supposed to be considering, what the law is that they're supposed to be considering which the two parties did not do in their closing in arguments yesterday.

that is reserved specifically for the judge here is that as the jury goes into that jury room, trump and his legal team actually must remain inside the courthouse. is the jury is here deliberating what their verdict is going to be. they have to stay here in case they do breach that verdict in short order of course, we don't know how long it'll take the jury. i do have cnn's paula reid and john berman here with me and paul. obviously, i should note we'd jump has more family members in tow with him today, donald trump junior is seated next to alina habba in that first row behind his father. he actually just recently made an appearance here at this case, but it is notable that trump has to stay inside the courthouse as the jury is going to be in that jury room deliberating don't know how long it could take. >> yeah. he's going to hate that. he's made it clear. he does not clearly he doesn't like the case, but it also doesn't like the courthouse. he really just does not enjoy being in there. so he's gonna probably be like a cage tiger and that'll be something for his lawyers have to deal with. and it really stinks for anyone, obviously to be a defendant in a criminal case. it's stressful. you're waiting, but they have no idea how long they'll wait, even when the jury does come back

with a note, it could just be a question. so this is going to be a challenging few days for him. well, and i should note the courtroom has just been told that once the judge does begin, the jury charge, those jury instructions. >> no one can leave or enter the room. i mean, that could be challenging for trump's gas too often we're seeing going in and out of the room are coming in later, john, than the other ones as witnesses were talking testifying in this case. >> it's strikes me that donald trump chose not to speak before he entered the courtroom today. he often does it's a reminder that the next time we hear from donald j. trump he could be a convicted felon i mean, it's not inconceivable that the next time he speaks before cameras like that, the jury will have gone back into that jury room, begun deliberations, and then come out with a verdict. i mean, this is truly and historic moment here we are in uncharted territory and just it's really interesting to think about the pi civil implications of what's going on here and how much is just unknown in that building still, that's a great point because trump has spoken almost every single day, if not every single day, that he has walked into

that courtroom. he didn't speak last night, which wasn't totally surprising. it was a very late evening. he had an event to go to the campaign, said, but for him not to speak going into the room. i mean he certainly speaking a lot on social media and in common season making to others about this case, but it just say something that he had nothing to say. >> yeah. or he has so much to say and his lawyer suggested that he not say it at this very sensitive moment because jurors are about to get their mission statement. the instructions from the judge. we haven't even seen these yet. the lawyers have them, but we don't know so what exactly they're going to be told and the way the judge describes how they need to approach this task. this can really shape the outcome of this case. so this is such a critical moment and it definitely, i'm sure is a huge relief to his attorneys that he did not speak heading into this incredibly important day. >> yeah. and we've seen the relationship but this jury has developed with the judge as he is often very much looking out for them, their schedules, what they have to do whether or not they're getting exhausted yesterday during that very lengthy a closing argument from

the prosecution, cnn's elie honig, is that the magic wall and ellie obviously we have been following this now we are in the seventh week of this trial, and this is really the do or die moment where we will find out what the jurors themselves all to have been largely expressionless during most of this trial. you can't really read what they are thinking as they are hearing from these attorneys in these witnesses. now we'll get to find out what exactly it how they've seen all of this evidence and how they perceived it, and whether or not they determined donald trump is guilty or not guilty? >> yeah. katelyn, in about an hour from now now, the jury will begin deliberations. but what's going to happen between now and then is really important. the judge is going to give the jury their formal legal instructions and really the judge's goal here is to give them a view of the law that is fully accurate, but also that a normal human being can understand. so let's walk through some of the key points. the judge is about to instruct the jury on first first of all, he's going to start with the indictment, which of course charges falsifying business records in the first degree, we know that there are 34 counts in the indictment. the jury is

going to have to return a separate verdict on each of them. now it's important to understand this crime is unusual. there's sort of three steps that the judge is about to outline for the jury. first, falsifying business records, which is essentially what it sounds like, but then in order to commit some other crime under new york state law, that other crime here, according to the prosecutors as the judge will lay out, is an effort to influence the election by quote, unlawful means. and to that end, the prosecution has offered the jury three different unlawful means, falsification of other business records and tax fraud, both of which got sort of short shrift during the actual trial and during yesterday's closings. but the big one that prosecutors have really focused on is a violation of federal campaign laws. that's how this becomes a felony. now, the theory really all flows from the payments to stormy daniel's the hush money payments. of course, we know michael cohen first paid stormy daniels $130,000 before the 2016 election, and then was reimbursed by donald trump and

the trump organization, $420,000 after the election. now, how does that become a crime? let me show you something that ada said yesterday to the jury during his closing argument, he said, once am my and he argued the same thing later for cohen. once they purchased stories onto candidates behalf and in coordination with a campaign, those purchases became unlawful. campaign contributions and then the theory is donald trump tried to hide those unlawful campaign contributions by making them look like legal fees by a labeling them as retainers on the checks and invoices. so that's the theory of how you get to the crime here. the argument is these were legal fees that they've tried to make him look like legal fees in order to disguise the fact that they were campaign contributions. a couple other really important points the judge is about to instruct the jury on. first of all, the burden of proof all important burden of proof in a criminal case, it is beyond a reasonable doubt. that's the highest in our entire legal system. the judge will make a point that the prosecution bears that

burden of proof. also crucial, the judge will tell the jury it is up to you to decide witness credibility based on what the witness said, how they set it, based on the other evidence. and of course, the key battleground here is going to be michael cohen, that the parties offered very different views of how the jury should interpret michael cohen's testimony. todd blanche, donald trump's lawyer said, michael cohen, he's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt. michael cohen is the gloat. he's literally the greatest liar of all time. the de offers a very different view of michael cohen. he said that's not much of a hurdle because in this case there is literally a mountain of evidence of corroborating testimony that tends to connect the defendant, donald trump, to this crime. so witness credibility is a key point. couple other really important points the judge is about to instruct the jury on the fifth amendment. he will tell the jury no defendant ever has to take the stand. you cannot use the fact that trump chose not to testify against him in any way under our constitution. and finally, and

importantly, the judge will tell the jury, you must be unanimous in order to return a verdict. you it has to be 12 zero to convict 12, zero to find not guilty and so they're going to begin this process. j. could just a few minutes of seeing if they can work through the evidence or through the laws and reach unanimity and deliver a verdict all right. >> interesting stuff. elie honig, thanks so much. my panels here among our panelists, karen friedman, agnifilo, the former chief assistant district attorney in the manhattan da's office, karatay of council for a firm that represents michael cohen, but she it has no contact with cohen, does not work on his case. and there are no restrictions on what you can say about this case. let us dive in and david chaldean, let me start with you. give us the 30,000 foot view here the jury is going to get instructions and then they are going to go into a jury room. >> and even if the judge has said that they shouldn't listen to what the defense attorney said yesterday when he said you can't put this man in prison for this that's already there. and has i don't know how that

leaves there. yeah, you can well, it was there. i'm sure to begin with. >> fair but but it's momentous. >> it's momentous. yeah. i'm sure for i'm not sure. we've employed the word unprecedented as much as we have for this case, but it is totally deserved. i mean, we've never seen anything like this and now 12 manhattan nights are going to hold in their hands the decision-making of what will be the outcome of the first ever a criminal trial of a former president united states. it's just astounding to think about that and let me just interject for one second just to give some color from inside the room right now, the prosecutors are there. trump walked in down the center aisle, trailed by his attorney, todd blanche donald trump junior is their next to alina habba, donald trump's other attorney in the first row behind trump. there's no sign of the district attorney, alvin bragg the judges on the bench. the jury is entering and judge merchan has said, members of the jury, i will now instruct you on the law. so i mean,

there's a pageantry to it and a weightiness. >> there's no doubt about that jake and i think for the former president also, how could there not be? a weight on him? i think you see it as he entered the courtroom today, obviously, he the fist up and the defiance, but the not speaking and understanding this moment is one that he can't. they've done all the work they've done in the pre messaging and conveying to the country that they think this is a totally the unfair trial and a total political witch hunt. and they hope that will work for them as a basis from which a large swath americans will see whatever the outcome is. but that doesn't take away this personal moment for donald trump, who was tried his entire life to avoid this kind of a moment. >> so on this on this matter, as judge, merchan is saying, members of the jury, i will now instruct you on the law. let us turn to my legal flank here over and one of the things i want to get some fact-checking and assessing on the defendant, mr. trump, posted a new message

on truth, social saying, quote, and this is in all caps. can you imagine that i as a defendant, i'm not allowed to rebut or correct the many lies told during the five-hour filibuster just put on by the soros back da's office in the manhattan court, what a disgraceful performance of misrepresentation. it was maga 2024 it's actually not a bad theoretical argument about how the jury system and how this should work. i mean, if we are in a system of checks and balances, it's supposed to favor the defendant in some ways and bend over backwards to make sure everybody gets a fair case i think it's a decent argument that the defense should get to go last. but they don't and this is not unique to donald trump. this is just how it is. it's not unique. donald trump and i, i'm glad that somebody who is asking to be the head of the executive branch of government, which oversees the department of justice, has a real interest in making sure that there is more equity in our justice system which you and i have talked about is a legal system in

aspirational venue. there is a two tiered system is justice without question, there is how her sean just told the jury you or the judges of the facts and you are possible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. please continue to the point that he's making first of all he's trying to play upon a kind of ignorance about the system that suggests. but for the first time ever this is happening just because it's donald trump. it is not it is unique in new york is a couple of hints the same bang to have the fans go first and the prosecution, our federal system has the prosecution, then the defense and the prosecution can rebut these different issues, but the burden of proof is all over the department of justice or with the state or local prosecuting body in this case, the manhattan da's office, that burden of proof is a very, very substantial way that the government must always prove and it such that at the defense need not ever present a case that is essentially what makes it more balanced. and we also the judge is telling the jury that nothing he has said through the trial was meant to suggest that he has an opinion

on this case. this is also pretty standard, but in this realm, examine a whole new definition and insight because donald while trump has tried to suggest that this judge is politically motivated or bias. and so he's saying, if you have formed an impression, i do have an opinion. you must put it out of your mind at this time because the judge's job is not to decide. so elie honig and karen, i want to ask you about something i read by a former assistant us attorney andy mccarthy southern district southern district of years. so he writes for the national review and he, he's often cited by donald trump when he goes in and out of the courtroom, he said something that i thought was interesting and i want to get your assessment on one end of n fact check it if you will or at least explain. so he says, it's quite is very critical of judge merchan the case. and one of the things he writes in the national review it's quite amazing. he explicitly the state of new york is relying on violations of feca. that's federal election campaign laws. as the other crime that donald trump was allegedly concealing by causing his business records

to be falsified just to take a second there to explain this. >> this is a misdemeanor case. >> the business falsifications, but since the theory of the case is it was done in service to another crime, the federal election campaign laws. that's what makes it a felony. the judge has said as a juror, you're asked to make a very important decision about another member of the community. in any case. and mccarthy rights that the state relying on the merchan i know you would not want to make that decision based on such stereotypes or attitudes. so anyway, he's saying the state is explicitly relying on this second crime federal election campaign laws as the other crime that bumps it up to a felony. the judge telling the jurors, you must set aside any personal opinions you have in favor or against the defendant. it is impossible to draw any conclusion. the andy mccarthy rights other than manhattan district attorney alvin bragg knew that and as a state prosecutor has enforcement of federal law would be incredibly controversial since he has no such authority the federal agencies that do, that do have such authority investigated trump and opted not to

prosecute the fec looked at this and decided not to and to get the prosecution done. bragg is simply making up his own version of federal law. so trump is right now sitting back as merchan is reading the instructions. so he's basically saying that this other crime that the building is falsification was done in service of what's kinda like hidden until the very end. and into this closing argument and that it's kind of like not fair the way that alvin bragg did this, and the way that judge merchan allowed it. what do you think? >> i agree in part, it is very unusual. it's unprecedented to have a state prosecution where the predicate the underlying crime is a federal election law violation don't agree with the imputation of bad motives on alvin bragg's behalf. i think alvin bragg took a look at this, did his research. i think he understands it's not an automatic. there will be an appeals issue however, i think he decided that it was worth a shot. now, what's happening right now, i think this is important to point out. >> let me interrupt one second. i'm sorry, judge merchan telling jurors they may not speculate about matters related the two sentence or punishment

telling the jury that that will be up to him as the judge. and this is obviously in direct relationship to win todd blanche, the defense attorney yesterday said something along the lines of you can't send this man to prison for this. we don't know what the sentence is that was inappropriate. he was reprimanded. they're inappropriate according to the judge, and he was reprimanded. >> a standard instruction, but it solute takes on more resonance that slip or i think, i think inappropriate statement by todd blanche, all of these instructions we've been seeing you are to keep an open mind. you're not to worry about what i think these are not donald trump specific. this is boilerplate that gets read and it's important to every defendant in new york, right? anyway, so you don't think you don't buy that it was bad motives, but you do think it was unusual this idea of the federal election law, which alvin bragg has no role in actually enforcing. i think he would acknowledge if pressed, that he understands he's he's reaching a bit here and he's going to have a hotly contested appellate issue that we don't know how it'll come out, but if trump gets convicted, he is absolutely going to peel and this will be issued one on a gil. it's not up to the states

to enforce federal campaign law karen, i have a slightly different perspective because in state court, there are these crimes like burglary, for example that if you have the intention to commit another crime, that's what bumps it to a felony, a burglary is trespass, which is the misdemeanor that if you haven't the intention to commit another crime, it bumps it up to a felony you might not know what criminal intent the other person that the criminal, the defendant will have in there. >> and that's upheld all the time. it's not about the specific crime. you don't have to prove the specific crime. and so to suggest that the prosecution somehow has to now prove federal election law is just a misstatement of the law. and the state prosecutors, in other instances where that is a general criminal intent, which is what this is we have used when i was a state prosecutor sorry for saying we it's hard to break habits, but they have

used a federal crimes because it's still a crime in new york, right? you're not allowed to commit federal crimes in new york either. if you have that criminal, that general criminal intent that has been upheld in new york state. and so i disagree that this is an issue and i also disagree that they have to prove the elements of that other crime. it's just the bad motive that they have to write now, the jurors eyes are locked on judge merchan as he is facing them directly in reading these instruction. and just to give you a layout of what the courtroom is right in the center. obviously, is the judge's desk or podium very, very hot. hi and then to his left is the jury and they are the only thing in between them is the witness stand and then the jury's right there. so it's very close. maybe i would say like maybe ten or 15 feet where the judge is going to instruct the jury today specifically on federal campaign finance law. what it means and how they are to apply. that's number one. number two yes. state

prosecutor sometimes use federal crimes as predicates, but never before in history, a federal campaign fraud crime. this is the first time we've seen that, by the way, one other quick note on the jury notes, and this came up earlier in a lotto of jurisdictions, including most federal courts, the judge will send back the written instruction. it's usually 50 80 pages somewhere in there in. new york state court. that's not the way it works. so the judge is going to read this hour long charge. the jury is going to listen. they can take notes, but they're not going to have the actual document in the room with them. >> judge marsha and tells the jury the reading the charge will take an hour. he says the panel will not receive copies of the jury instructions, but they may request that merchan read them back to them, right? >> notes. along those lawyered imagine, if you had to two jurors who were also attorneys now the idea of having attorneys on this jury panel becomes all the more important precisely for the reasons the defense does not want and the prosecution could not want as well. if you're the prosecution, you want them to be relying on the instructions as the judge is presenting them? want. them to be following what they gave and the trial, but they will be

deferential sometime to the lawyers to say will tell me what this means. of course, he's reminding the jury that he gave them limiting instructions on several points, which is were provided him to hear on a limited purpose. now limited instruction essentially telling them, put that toothpaste back into the tube, unring that bell, you didn't hear what you just heard. and if you did use it for only a specific purpose, that's a very difficult thing for people to do. and so again, walking through what those attractions may have ben, he's going to verbalize that, but just take a step back for a moment and rise that this judge is the last line of buffer between a jury deliberating on whether there is guilt or innocence of a former american president. it's such a consequential moment and they've gotta remember the eight hours of statements yesterday. >> so right now, just to remind people, judge merchan has told the jurors, you must set aside any personal opinions you have in favor or against the defendant, kaitlan yeah. >> jake and this is notable

about him walking through the limiting instructions they got before because we remember some of those including about david pecker and the non-prosecution agreement that he had basically immunity as he was up there on the stand talking about his experiences with donald trump michael cohen. about michael cohen, there are these moments that the jury heard during that time. they will be reminded of them now it sounds like from this, judge, and one such instruction, ami's non-prosecution agreement that is used to assess david pecker's credibility. it's not evidence of the defendant's guilt or innocence here. and paula, that's notable because these moments, obviously david pecker cooperated and he signed to this non non-profit prosecution agreement when they began investigating all of this and so it seemed to change his demeanor on the stand. he had this kind of grandfatherly sense about him. he was laughing at some points with the judge. he clearly the jury had no ax to grind against donald trump. they were friends for 40 years or so, but it is important because it's how the witnesses or how the jury sees what that witness is testifying about. yeah. you heard

prosecutors and their closings yesterday, really hone in on david pecker and trying to establish and bolster his credibility. the fact that he was not someone like you said with an ax to grind. now, just now a phone went off in the courtroom. our colleagues are reporting that it appeared to be alina havas phone playing a video. apparently, the judge did not did not look to that look did not react, did not make a thing about it and she apparently put her away are filled, but this is such interesting because trump's team they've had their phones. anyone else if you're sitting in the back of the room, including the da's team from what i've seen are not on their phones. >> you are not allowed to be on your phone. >> you can even have your phone sitting next to you if on silent or even off the court officers will tell you, put it away, and don't even bring it out. yeah. but trump's team, they sit right behind them and they often have their phones out doing various things, email house, but to have a video play in the middle of this historic moment when they're charging the jury. >> i mean, that's that's pretty poor form. so hopefully that will not happen again. but the judge did he shot her a stern look in that direction. the way the noise was coming

from and just moved on, which is probably the right way to handle it, right? this is a critical moment. you want to walk the jury through this incredible task they are about to undertake and not get distracted by something like that. >> i mean, that's the worst moment. i mean, this is small, not going to change how the jury decides any of this, but it is silent in that courtroom, you can almost hear a pin drop. and so for someone's phone to golf as he is now saying, we're turning to the fundamental principles of our law that applies to all criminal trials. >> i mean, the way he delivers he's instructions is so important, john, because it's how the jury hears that. >> and of course, they don't actually get a copy of what he's about to read to them. he'll be able to reread it to them as many times as they need as they're deliberating, but they don't actually get to take the copy of this into the jury room with them in with this sentence right here, we now turn to the fundamental principles of law that applied all criminal trials, every one of the lawyers here's including paul and the people down and see if now moved to the front of their chairs here because that's what we've all been waiting for to hear how judge juan merchan describes this case and what the jury must decide to the jurors

themselves. and it was interesting that you brought up the ami thing and david pecker who basically admitted to campaign finance violations here in that in that gets what they were talking about in washington dc, there is a campaign fraud element to this case. the prosecution in their closing arguments really hammer that home. that would done here. what was done here was simply illegal kaitlan, there's one more updates. >> well, and of course, the judge is telling the jury that they can't hold that against them. the defendant is not required to prove the fact that he is not guilty. in fact, the defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything talking about that and also saying in addition to david pecker's agreement, michael cohen pleaded guilty. should not be taken as proof of trump's guilt as well for this jury. yeah, which is an important point. these are all really important points for the defendant, right? the burden as right now, it's always been on the state if the people satisfy their burden of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt you must find the defendant guilty. that people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime, including the defendant, is the person who committed that crime.

>> we heard so much from the prosecution yesterday, donald trump paused. yes, yes. >> that word and waited to hear cause come up in the jury instructions, but the prosecution knew this is and merge shauna saying the burden of proof never shifts from the people to the defendant. remember what he's saying? reasonable doubt. they called michael cohen and the defense did the human embodiment of reasonable doubt and on that, we also have former us district judge, don e. jones here with us judge. it's great to have you because right now, judge merchan is defining reasonable doubt, saying it is not sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty. how does a juror know when it's when it's reasonable doubt? i mean, it seems obvious, but when you're actually the one in that room deliberating how important is it for you as a judge to make sure that that's in crystal clear? to this jury i think it's pretty abstract the way the jury receives it it is not stated necessarily and in layman's terms. >> it's that it is a real doubt not a fanciful doubt

something that would make you pause or hesitated and patir of importance to you. jurors, i think received that differently so it's an imprecise science, but i have always found that jurors could assimilate that instruction and that intuitively they understood what that meant, that it was that they needed to be more sure of the guilt on any elements than not so it's really it's a clinical description, but in practice, i think jurors do pretty well with it. >> judge, merchan just said, whatever your verdict may be, it must not rest on speculation. he is developed a rapport with this jury and the sense of how he is considerate of their time and what they're hearing and making sure that these proceedings are incredibly fair and that they're not influenced in any way. he says, quote, if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged

crime, you must define you must find the defendant not guilty. but but judge, it is that fine line of reasonable doubt, but not all possible doubt that this jury is kinda finding themselves when they look at these checks and these invoices and the testimony that they've heard of where they believe this this falls you an important component of instructions is something like, you don't check your good judgment, you're good common sense. >> at the door when you enter the jury room to deliberate, i always used to say that to my juries and that is the overarching principle that typically juries use. you, you can't sort of in maybe an elegant terms. you can't be s a jury. they, they sort of get it and they're gonna go in there and try to figure out what they agree about. and then what areas need to be discussed and fleshed out that they don't agree on. there's no

handbook for how deliberations are conducted and they're gonna go through all these permutations. but a lot of what both the prosecution and the defense argued will not be relevant to their to their determinations. they'll strip a lot of that away. i suspected they're in their deliberations. i do find it unfortunate in the jurisdiction of new york that the instructions don't go out with the jury in federal court where i toiled for almost 20 years. we always said the instructions out in written form. >> what it bags, and you may see these questions arise during extended deliberations by not having the instructions is that you may get repeated questions, read back. >> the definition of, for example, reasonable doubt, and explain that to us again, you blunt that and i think you further deliberations if they have the charge one, the judge just told the jurors, i'm the judge here, but you're the judges of the facts here of

what you just heard. >> it's a day alone, determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the witness testimony. >> i do agree with you. it seems crazy that they have to hear these lengthy instructions that will take an hour for the judge to walk them through the instructions in the law and they can't have a copy of it inside the jury room. what's the reasoning for that i think the traditional reasoning was that it could cause jurors to focus unduly on certain portions of the charge. >> and they would do that in a way that would take from their deliberations on the facts or the case. i frankly think that's paton nonsense i think juries love to have that charge in front of them so that they can reference a specific to fix sections after all, these are the guideposts that they use. they have to find the facts and apply the law to the facts that's exactly what the judge is telling them right now. and i defy anybody now, there's two

lawyers on the jury, but i defy them to to commit all these structures to memory. that's just absurd. >> yeah. judge jones, thank you for that because another important update is judge merchan just told the jurors if they find any witness has intentionally testified falsely to any fact that they can disregard that witnesses entire testimony, or just the portions that they found to be false. he's continuing to give them. this is important moment here because this whole thing could hinge on witness credibility, paula, but he's saying you can disregard the entire testimony or just some portions that you believe were false. >> look, i can already see, you know, this kind of things sparking a debate in the deliberation room because of course, all eyes on michael cohen. the fact that he did say some things were admitted, some things that make it harder the trust is full testimony, so you could see there were some jurors would be like, okay, i think we can disregard parts of it, maybe parts where he was not honest, but others might be like no, we should get rid of it entirely. and if you get rid of michael cohen's testimony entirely, it is very difficult

to see how this was proved beyond a reasonable doubt yesterday, prosecutors tried to argue there's a look, our case is not healing i'm john hamm. they described him as the tour guide who was merely walking the jury through hard evidence, but that just that is not true. >> they wouldn't have called michael cohen unless they had to the case in many ways hinges on the jury trusting him. >> so that instruction that's going to be key how each individual juror interprets that. >> well the two parties had these instructions when they went into their closing arguments. >> so as the prosecution was saying, it's not all about michael cohen's credibility and testimony here. i mean, they obviously knew the jurors. we're going to hear from the judge that they can consider whether witness hopes or expects to receive a benefit related to the trial or has an interest in the case's outcome that obviously also applies to the prosecutor said, of course, michael cohen, does they admitted that fact and again, they had seen these instructions going in which i think is such a great point to make. and i think largely tailored their arguments around these jury instructions. one point, as far as reasonable doubt and michael cohen and the idea of him being dishonest goes the defense in their

closing arguments used the word lie a liar, or lying 78 times a ton of times in terms of michael cohen, they mentioned michael cohen more than 250 times, more than they mentioned the defendant, donald trump, which michael cohen's attorney told us yesterday. michael cohen counted how many times they use the word lie or lying in relation to his name. >> we've always said that the defense was the cross-examinati on of michael cohen undermining his credibility. that was what the defense team had to do. now, the judge is telling the jurors they are not required to reject the testimony of an interested witness. so even if you suggest interested in the case hey, so that mean that they should reject that is what he said exactly using jurors are also not required to accept the testimony of a witness who has no interest in the outcome of the case. so when you talk about someone who has an interest prop stormy daniels said she doesn't like the defendant's, you would be happy to see him convicted michael cohen, the same, but jurors don't necessarily need to dismiss their testimony just because they have that interests. but there are other

ways if they see something that they said was false, they can potentially disregard everything they said which could be a game changer. i have a feeling that constructions are really going to kick off some interesting conversations among the journey i will say, and i wish i did go to law school. >> what i don't understand here is why in the legal system the judge says, you can't, but you don't have to form a germ like okay. i can do whatever i want that i either can disregard a whole of it. you don't have to disregard all over. i can disregard none of it. >> i mean, basically, he's opening a door for them to make the decisions here. which can be hard to find consensus on something like this. most of the trials have covered over the past 15 years you have some idea of the outcome. i don't think anyone knows here when he says jurors are also not required to accept the testimony of a witness there's no interest in the outcome of a case basically saying they've heard from people like stormy daniels and michael cohen. they've also heard from c-span executives and people who were white house aides were still loyal to donald trump as all of this was going on. >> yeah, he's just talking about your how do you weigh different witnesses? their motivations. he's going through all of this. i think

this is gonna be fascinating to the jury, but to drive consensus across 12 people when you're dealing with this kind of case unprecedented. so complex and the witnesses i mean, again, michael cohen has the prosecutor said they would not have selected him at the witness store, but he is what they got and they did the best they could. this is a historic task. and again the judge, walking the jury through step-by-step, exactly how they're going to approach this. i have absolutely no idea how this is going to and yeah. >> and of course we've heard from a lot of these attorneys, witnesses, michael cohen, stormy daniels, there watching all of this very closely this week to see what it is this jury decides once they are inside the jury room, jake, those still very much in the middle of these instructions from the judge yep and we were joined right now by former trump attorney tim parlatore and tim, i want to come to you in a second, but before i do, nima leica and jamie, you can you can already hear the partisans out. >> they're preparing their talking points for whatever the

jury does the jury is evil pool and stupid, and biased. >> either way, by the way either way and it does, it does remind us of the incredible responsibility these jurors have. judge merchan right now under our law, michael cohen is an accomplice. that's a point that they're making their but it is whatever the jury's desire. the juror is decide we need to respect it one way or the other and you hope that those jurors can put the noise out of their minds, right? >> they've been there for seven weeks. they're gonna be here for any more minutes listening to this, judge there was a lot of hoopla, obviously, outside of the courtroom or we're covering this wall to wall, but i imagined that inside that courtroom it probably feels like another day at the core and we should note, judge judy and judge merchan in calling and describing michael cohen as an accomplice. judge

merchan is saying jurors cannot convict trump on cohen's testimony alone because he is an accomplice, but they can use his testimony if they corroborate it with other evidence important jury instruction, j. again, gal so this goes to meet the end of the day juries come to decisions all the time is there any question that this jury is taking this very seriously? how could they how could they not? >> but what you see in these instructions common sense, reasonable doubt he leaves some things open to them. these are the kinds of discussions that jurors have every day. i also just want to say because of cohen's testimony alone, there were 19 other witnesses it is we should remember whose name we're not michael cohen, many of whom were not hostile to

donald trump. and also a lot of circumstantial evidence. my question just always comes back to there are two lawyers on this jury. and will they play an outsize role right now, trump is leaning back in his chair with his hands clasped as merchan judge, merchan reads this section more specifically about the case tim parlatore, i want to have you assess a claim that mr. trump wrote on his platform, truth social, where he said the greatest case i've ever seen for reliance on council and judge merchan will not for whatever reason, let me use that as a defense in this rig trial. another term advice of counsel, defense can you translate that from a legal ease? i have no idea what he's saying. i'm not saying he's right or wrong. i what does that mean reliance on counsel, advice of counsel defense. >> so this is a complicated point for the defense because it all goes back to that meeting between michael cohen,

weisselberg, and allegedly trump if trump is at the meeting and michael cohen says to him, hey, this is how we need to do the payments sir, this is legal, this is ethical than rely upon the advice of his lawyer saying, okay, i'm not doing a false business record because my lawyer told me this was legal but if the defense's he wasn't at the meeting and michael cohen did it on his own, then there's no advice of counsel to rely upon. and so i don't know that judge merchan so much prevented him from doing it. in general. so just to interject for one second, my understanding according to our fact check or danger dale, is that when trump was asked before trial whether he would be using an advice-of-counsel defense and his lawyers told judge merchan that he would not. >> so i guess he waved it. i guess it sounds to me like the lawyers made a tactical decision that they would rather present a case that he wasn't at the meeting and therefore, didn't rely upon michael cohen as his lawyer saying this, is okay. >> and so that's a decision

that they made and you have to choose. is that right? you have to choose. and i think that if they had presented more corroboration, something showing in the notes that trump was actually in the meeting, actively participate in the discussion. something more than just michael cohen's word alone then i think maybe a different tactical decision would be made on that. but that's not something that judge merchan is preventing them from doing. that's something that the lawyers, donald trump's lawyers, todd blanche, decided to do in this case. and then during the trial, there would be no reason for judge merchan to give them an instruction out advice, account so because it wasn't something raised factually in todd blanche's defense at some point, they needed to decide are we are we claiming that you did this because michael cohen told you it was okay or are you saying that michael cohen you were not at that meeting? we just have to pick one. they probably picked one it makes sense to me why it makes sense? why they picked that one, but that means you can't do advice of counsel. >> you have to pick one. you can't say i wasn't at the

meeting, but if you think i was at the meeting, then would you believe that michael collins said you have to pick one if you start doing alternative theories like that. >> yeah. then the jury recognizes that you're well, then it's a choose your own adventure. you can. >> and one thing that josh steinglass said yesterday in the closing arguments, he said he was speaking much less at the idea when they raised the notion that these were illegal service is being paid. they have gone to some great lengths in the prosecution to one as as michael cohen was not acting as an attorney, that he was not a member are answering to the general counsel and that these were not legal services that were rendered. so you've got this dynamic at play again, if you were as the defense trying to suggest this was is that relationship and the evidence coming in quite differently if you're just joining us right now, judge merchan is i don't know about half or so away of the way through his instructions to the jury jury about their the decision that they have to make. jurors are looking down some of them taking notes and judge merchan is giving them instructions on what they have to do. i he said

i will now instruct you on the law applicable to the charge defense that offenses falsifying business records in the first degree. that's 34 counts. he says to the jury you must find beyond a reasonable doubt he said, first that he solicited solicited requested, commanded in poor tuned or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct. and second, that he did so with the state of mind required with the commission of the offense and elie honig, the state of mind is i know that this is wrong. >> yeah, let me try to translate all that into plain english. if you find that he did it and he knew what he was doing, that's the question for you. and what's the they just i just went through this, but again, it's a really unusual three step charge. it's one falsifying business records, two, or ordering them to be able yes, he doesn't have two. >> that's an important point that the de a may gesture. he doesn't have to go into the computers and login and falsified falsifying business records to violate new york state elections. there's more

science or the extent or degree of defendant's participation in the crime does not matter as long ong as he solicited requested commanded in portland, are intentionally a little pregnant, i guess. >> yeah. it sounds like donald trump, guess what? they're saying here and you tell me if i'm wrong is if donald trump had any knowledge that this was being done on his behalf at all, even if he was just a bit player in it, then the guilty of the crime in order to find the defendant guilty. john says the jury must be unanimous. we knew we knew that the analogy we used to make as prosecutors is it's like a movie cast. everyone who is in it is in the cast. even if you're an extra urine the cast, if you're the star, you're in the cast doesn't matter how big the role or sean says. >> jurors do not need to be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally or acted in concert with another for both. and your metaphor, all they have to agree is a donald trump was in the cast of this production they don't have to agree on whether he was an extra bit player or orally so important

because remember, these were falsified business records, charges, which means that even if he himself did not falsify the business records as long as as they mentioned in the closing argument, if he made or cause the false entry there, making this very expansive as part of the cast analogy, he doesn't have to be the person to have actually recorded it. >> that's very important because they don't have the direct evidence at trump actually record that information invoices you've got ledgers, you've got checks. and so as long as he he was a part of it to make or cause it, they could find if they choose to beyond a reasonable doubt yeah and tim, do you find these instructions to expansive do you think or they just didn't accordance with law? now, i think these are definitely in accordance with the law. most of these instructions are pre-written. you can go on the internet onto the unified court system website and print them out. they might make modifications for the specific case, but this part here, yes. this is absolutely true. whether you're a small participant, you have to know what's going on and be willing participants. judge more sana saying a person is guilty of falsifying business

records in the first degree when we're intent to defraud. and we'll get the second part of the second. go ahead with him. i'm sorry. >> so he has to be part of i'm sorry. >> which concludes the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof he makes or causes a false entry in the records, right. and so the false entry is not it's not the payment. it's not the check. it's the annotation of legal fees and so if he agrees okay. we're going to pay michael cohen back. we're gonna plus it up. we're going to do all this stuff. >> and he and they can't actually tie him to the accountants annotation of legal fees then that actually does pull them outside of it. it says, i'm or judge merchan saying, although the people must prove an intent and intent, merchan is explaining them intent to defraud means a conscious, objective, or purpose. so he in other words, you have to prove, are you have

to believe beyond a reasonable doubt donald trump knew that this was being done and he was the intent was to deceive judge merchan says a question naturally arises. how do you determine intent? quote, you must decide whether the required intent can be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt from the proven facts. in other words, they don't have donald trump on tape saying, hey, falsify these business records it's from me to cover up the stormy daniels hush money payments of which i only care about because of the 2016 election. they don't have that. so they have to infer it beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. >> so really important as well. one of the things that the judge also talked about in terms of trying to make sure that this was really driving driving, that driving that point home he said, although the people must prove an intent, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed aided, or concealed. that's very important here, because remember an order to elevate from the misdemeanor of just falsifying the business record two then becoming a felony, you have to have done so in order to try to conceal another

prime, the big question is and why they had this issue where they could call a campaign finance expert. otherwise, was to suggest do i have to prove that i actually did that other crime and he's saying intact doesn't even require premeditation. this is really important to think about what they don't have to prove, yes, a falsified business record, the intent to defraud to cover up another crime. but that's other crime, whether it's tax fraud, campaign finance violation, that does not need to be proved. he says intent to defraud his win, his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so and it doesn't matter, whether they planned it. it's just whether or not at that moment the intent was to defraud that. that's exactly right. and the real question here is for the jury, do you find that donald trump, there was some moment in time when donald trump agreed with others. we're going to falsify business records ever going to do it because we want a break campaign finance laws, they do not have to find the campaign finance laws actually were broken as long as here's the plan, the agreement was. let's falsify these records because we're trying to skirt those

laws now, in this case if you are on board with the prosecution, they did violate the case. >> well, let me answer your question. what if there's a juror who thinks i think donald trump found out about this after the fact, right? like michael cohen did it, right? about after the facts that there can be no intent because the business records were already i guess they weren't all already defrauded or falsified, allegedly. but the plan was in motion and michael cohen, let me in on it afterwards, sourcing can absolutely join a conspiracy that's already in progress. >> you can join midstream even if it's 99% now, even if it's 1%, if you have 1%, you know about what in that case, they would only get convicted of the last checks they would have to set it in time, so he's definitely not going to be guilty of the earlier checks before he knew. >> but if they think that he found out somewhere in the middle, then they can convict them of the judgment shine explaining that the jury must determine whether the defendant and conspired to promote or prevent a person to public office by unlawful means. the

judge has germs must be unanimous on that fact, but not on what the unlawful means are. this is the second part of the crime, allegedly that this is the part that makes it a felony. merchan explains the prosecution has three theories of those unlawful means. so this is interesting because it's always giving the prosecution, i'll huge benefit of the doubt here. you don't have to prove that it's any one of these, but you just have to agree that it's one of these three, one is violations of the federal election campaign act, otherwise known as fico. that's the one we read and discuss two from andy mccarthy of the national review to falsification of other business records. and we can talk about those in a second. and then the third one is violations of tax law. so let's dive into what this means. they're saying these, if you believed that these business records were falsified, that they covered up that michael cohen paid stormy daniel's and he was repaid. the money was reimbursed if you

agree on that, which is a misdemeanor, 34 counts of a misdemeanor in service of another crime then you have to convect and the other crime could be any one of these three, these other crimes could be falsification of other business records or the election laws, or the tax laws explain this to me because i don't understand what what's your instructions tend to build off one another. and one of the reasons are saying earlier said, listen you don't have to prove that an underlying crime of that second elevating two felony occurred. you don't have to prove you can prove that there's a falsified business record. >> but the way it goes to a felony is it suggests that there was another crime they were trying to ultimately cover up or hide, right? this is the metaphor that was used before about trespassing i tend to commit burglary. you don't actually have to successfully commit the burglary, correct? the intent to commit the burglary is what makes the pret trespassing more than a misdemeanor? >> yes. and so that's paying attention, professor that's the last case i tried in front

number sean actually, is that right? >> yeah. it was a burglary case one and was it bumped up to a felony because of intent to commit burglary in the charge, but my clients are not guilty. okay. >> you one of the nuances here is they don't have to prove that they actually committed campaign finance violations, that they actually committed any of these substantive counts to interrupt for one second. i'm sorry, i'm or sean, judge marsha explain to the jury unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate running for office exceeding certain limits. and the judge notes and in the relevant years that limit was $2,700 per election cycle. but that's not does that count for yourself? sean says if a payment would have been made even in the absence of a candidacy, then the payment should not be treated as a contribution. so if donald trump would have paid this hundred and $30,000 reimbursed at allegedly and he wasn't running for president, then that's not a campaign contribution. the judge's outlining how things such as editorials and other media

activity are not considered political contributions. >> here he's he's trying to, so long as such activity is normal legitimate press function. roshan says, right, we know in this country that is an expansive definition exact. >> this is deriving from the supreme court's case in citizens united. >> the example given for legitimate press function is seeking new subscribers to a publication that's all you have to do is the secant freiburg pretty low bar. so every lie that you see on twitter, click the link, link bay, clickbait, all that, that is legitimate press function the nuance here is while they don't have to prove the target offense was committed, they have to prove that what they intended to do was in fact a crime. and i think that's really the hidden landmine here. >> but what tell me about the $2,700 thing because that's done if that's donald trump contributing to donald trump, there's no there's no, you can't break campaign limits for your own campaign. here's what or is it michael cohen contributing that?

>> and i say, this is where that citizens united case really comes in, is that he's not paying it directly to donald trump. he's paying it to somebody else on behalf of the campaign. so is it a contribution? in kind? >> so it's, so the theory would be breaking campaign laws. bye, by, by being complicit in michael cohen breaking the campaign laws in reimbursing him. >> this is a major minefield here because criminal prosecutors get fec law wrong all the time? i had a client once a former congressman who is who pleaded guilty before i represent him to 200,000, an illegal campaign expenditures thereafter, the fec looked at it and they it said no, there's only 5,000 and so what he had pleaded guilty to the fec looked at and said that's not actually a crime. yeah. and speaking of which are reminder that the fec did look at this case in terms of federal campaign law, and they did conclude kaitlan collins that they were not going to prosecute for it yeah.

>> and the judge mentioned that and that investigation and michael cohen's guilty, please subsequently, as a result of that and said that they should not take that as any result are evidence of trump's guilt in this case. of course, referring i'm to him is the defendant here at jake and pylori and john berman are back here with me right now. paul is the judge's walking through this. he's getting close to wrapping up. he's at least probably three fourths of the way through and then the jury is going to have this case and he's he's very clearly walking them slowly through each of this, how they can assess the witnesses, and now how they can assess the laws that they are being asked to judge whether not trump violated them and as guilty of this. >> yeah, again, it's remarkable that they don't get a copy of this. so our colleagues are reporting that some of the jurors are taking notes, but then you go into a room with 12 people dealing with 34 different counts in this historic case. and i think it's going to take a while for them because not only do you need to drive to some sort of consensus it's hopefully unless they are deadlocked on each of the individual accounts, it's also does even getting to the count, getting through the law and getting through the evidence. how do you assess this? going back to

the judge's instruction? all right now he's getting into tax law. he's saying that the tax law violations that is unlawful for a person to willfully produce a tax statement or other documents that are materially false. and the judge says that such conduct is unlawful even if it does not result in the underpayment of taxes. >> well, that seems interesting with what he said earlier, which is that premeditation does not have to exist just for there to be intent here. >> yes, that's exactly right now. it's interesting that he's getting into taxes here because historically this is the kind of crime that the trump organization has had issues with because their tax practices were pretty shifting. now i know he's going to actually turn in a second to go through the individual counts. but this is an important point. >> he's making about the underpayment of taxes. so when he's running through each of the counts here, obviously there are 34 and total it's mainly for the different checks that were that were assigned to michael cohen, which we've seen numerous times, john inside that courtroom, donald trump signature on them, eric trump, donald, i'm junior on two of

them. and then also of course, the ledgers that they had inside the trump organization, which was you've heard this point of disagreement between how the defense summed up in their closing arguments and what the prosecution said, because the prosecutor kinda had this incredulous tone as he was saying, well, they want you to believe that because these records exist, that no crimes were committed. he was saying if that was the case, they'll never be a false business charge here on the state of new york in the prosecution kept on making the case, looked donald trump wrote in a tweet that it was a reimbursement for michael cohen, these payments and count one, merchan says that people must prove each of the two things he's going to lay out what they must prove in each of the 34 counts of 34 documents, as you say, and people remember for the prosecution with michael cohen, walked through each of these documents into everyone, the prosecutor asked cohen, was this real was less legit and michael cohen said, no, it was false. you have his testimony there and then you also have the documents themselves, many of which include donald trump signatures, which are pieces of evidence here on the campaign finance violation. what is

interesting is how much time the prosecution did spend on that. and it's closing arguments it was allowed to or it opened the door from the defense where the defense also focused on that said, oh, no, no, no violation here. well, i think one of the things that prosecution did lay out pretty clearly as stormy daniels was paid, a lot of money from michael cohen. michael cohen was reimbursed are given that money back by donald trump my most definitions, does flood or go around campaign finance and that they were under enormous pressure to suppress stories ahead of the election in the wake of the access hollywood tape i think the argument that this money was paid to help trump win the white house, that is something that prosecutors arguably have proven beyond a reasonable doubt issue is that's not the crime that's charged. the crime that is charged is falsifying business records and that's unclear if they've proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. >> well, and is there a chance word the reading through all 34 of these and the jury is going to go into that room and have all of this weighing on them that they could convict him potentially only on the checks here and not the ledgers as we

heard but from the accountant, the other trump organization officials who are physically the ones who did it, though we know of course, what's at the center of this is whether or not trump caused it, not just falsified it himself. well, you just hit hit it exactly as the cause this does the jury buy into the idea that trump cause michael cohen to submit these false invoices and these other documents, things that he did not personally sign. >> and that's part of why the trump team believes that the best-case likely scenario so for them here is that the jury deadlocks either on all the counts or on the counts that are not related to checks that trump personally signed and the judge is talking about count one, that john was just referencing on or about february 14, 2017, the defendant personally or by acting in concert with others made or calls the false entries in the books of a business enterprise. and two, that's important because he could have caused it by having my participating in this scheme if that's what the jury believes here but the question is, do they do they separate the ledgers from the checks that merchan says it is specific to the invoice of michael cohen marked as a record of donald j.

trump's trust and kept or maintained by the trump org organization, the checks and only trump had the authorization, it just be clear, the judge made clear that be caused can include just had knowledge of or approved it or was aware of it without objecting that could be enough to convict here, the judge also said the defendant did so with the intent. >> and by that you it's not that trump has to say john berman, you have to physically do this for it to be caused that because you did it as a result of his instruction, whether it was implicit or explicit matters. merchan says that includes the intent to commit another crime and two or two aid or conceal the commission of another crime. >> and this is what prosecutors are hoping that jurors will lean into the idea that trump didn't direct as explicit so leave, but that he set this in motion, that he caused this to happen, that we're doing a lot of work there, but prosecutors believe if jurors see the case that way, that they could get convictions across the board. unclear if that's going to happen, but that is always been their theory of the case. >> and why they are confident

that they can win here. and merge. >> sean had just told the jury that they must find trump guilty, the defendant guilty if they believe that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, both aspects of that as jurors must find the defendant not guilty if there's reasonable doubt about one or both of the elements of the charge, and that's what was so interesting john about with the judge was saying there that this reasonable reasonable doubt is your interpretation of that as a human. i mean, i know judge merchan, i'm obviously say each of these jurors has had life experiences on a daily basis. they have to make a judgment on reasonable doubt about something, but now they're doing it in a highly consequential, if this is something that the defense here and really any defense clings onto any criminal trial, reasonable doubt, jury if you have doubts here, you cannot convict in the judge tried to explain to them what that doubt is or how expansive that debt must be worried go through all 34 counts here by the judge and he's going to lay out for them exactly what they have to determine on it. each and every count i want to bring in trial attorney and der consultant linda moreno back with us. >> it's been covering every

week of this trial since since day one of it. and linda, it's great to have you here as the jury is listening to all of this. what do you make of the clarity of the instructions from the judge so far and what the jury is taking in right now that they have to remember they can ask the judge to repeat it later on, but they won't have a physical copy of this in that jury room with them well, there of course, they can attended the entire time and they can also ask for some of the instructions back in the deliberating room so it's a lot to take in as lawyers or even saying it's a lot to take in but what's astounding and astonishing about this particular panel is they've never missed a day. >> they've never been late. it's been committed taking notes but i think they're going to have a lot of questions back there in the room. >> well you can you interpret what questions that they're asking? obviously they have they have to write it on a note to the judge, so it's not misinterpreted, so he has full clarity of what it is exactly

that they're asking. is there ever any way to discern what the jury is talking about in that specific moment or which way they're leaning from those notes or is it kind of hard to tell since we're not physically in the jury room with them it can be both. >> they can send out a note through the four man whose juror number one, as designated under state law and they can send up the note but that note may reveal discussion amongst all of the jurors, or maybe there's just one juror who is stuck on what's reasonable doubt or intent or the meaning of cars. >> so that that's very difficult to tell when they asked for read back on cross-examinations of certain width that might be more totaling. however and i should note, judge, were found right now is reading the entire law of falsifying business records in the first degree as it's written in new york law, four this jury, if they have questions inside the jury room, linda, do they can they only

write notes to the judge? is there ever a moment where he wants to bring the entire jury into to explain to them a piece of this or repeat part of it, or is it typically just? these written notes that they would send to him well, look, typically the notes come out and the judge will convene council on both sides. >> and ask for their input. and hopefully, there's some sort of consensus. and he may either write a note back to the jury or brynn, the jury out and read the answer to the jury so it can happen in an a number of different ways and as you what's clear here as the judge's talking to him about reasonable doubt is he was explaining that it's not probable. >> it's not that maybe they could be guilty here. it's not that it is beyond all doubt that the defendant is guilty. it's reasonable doubt that is this kind of middle ground? that the jury must coalesce around, whether it's guilty or not guilty. and from your

experience working with juries did they ever walk out of that room thinking that it wasn't completely clear or do they usually have a pretty good feeling about where they where they've landed on, whether it was beyond a reasonable doubt or not well, it does have to be beyond every single reasonable doubt. >> and jurors often asked that question. what are examples of reasonable doubt? and of course, the answers range from its proof of a from conviction. it must have moral certainty. it can't be imaginary doubt. it can't be beyond all possible doubt. but sometimes juries du have questions about that particular instruction. and also the instructions on intent what's it like inside a jury room as they're deliberating this, i mean, these are jurors who they're not supposed to really talk to each other about the case when they're at a lunch break or in a quick break, they had a few breaks yesterday because they went so late and, you know, now

once they're in the room and they're deliberating, which i know that there are only supposed to deliberate when all of them are in the room, not if someone has stepped out briefly. i've been how did those typically go once they do have this case in their hands? have you ever seen the movie 12 angry men. i mean, it can be that dramatic it absolutely be. it can range. >> i've done a lot of post-mortems on juries. what was the room like? >> i can be very heated, especially when the stakes are high these jurors in one sense, no, that the stakes are high, but in another, it is just a fraud case just happens to involve this particular defendant, but it's a fraud case. >> so it can really vary back in the deliberating room, but it's usually quite dramatic and there's a lot of discussion sometimes feeded that goes on and they'll take a straw vote they may take take a struggle in the very beginning.

and how many people think this? and what about the charges and maybe maybe they want to convince and just 11 of the checks that mr. trump had personally signed who knows, but i since there's going to be a lot of discussion in the room yeah. >> that's safe to say. london. thank you for joining us as we wait to have the jury actually get this case. i should note is the judge is continuing to walk through business fault of falsifying business records in the law here in the state of new york, trump is slashed in his chair with his chin resting on his chest. he is someone who wants the jury does get this case that they will. he and his legal team will remain here at the courthouse until that verdict has been breached, as long as the jury is here, trump and his team will be here as well, given no one knows how long it will take the jury to reach a verdict in this case. and paula, i mean, that's so notable in and of itself because obviously trump said to be here every day of this trial, we've all seen him inside the courtroom. we've seen him speak coming in and

out, but the idea that you have to go into separate room with his team and just wait. >> it is remarkable not want to be in that room iv if he is going to be really unhappy, it's not the nicest courthouse. he's made it clear. he does not particularly like the facilities is not being here. nobody likes being a criminal defendant. he's clearly not happy with the case, but that is going to be a very uncomfortable room and it's gonna be a challenge for the people who are there to support him, to keep him occupied, keep his mind occupied, keep him focused on something else otherwise, it's going to be a long few days. >> utterly helpless. he will be utterly helpless during those moments. >> and right now, judge merchan is repeating much of what he said earlier on while in this section, i mean the jury room that will be more fascinating, potentially, maybe than the room that trump is in as linda makes a great point there that this is a jury of sitting next to each other, which she said no from one but she's heard her postmortems it can get kind of dramatic are quite dramatic inside that room as these people, as the judges clearly urging them to come to a unanimous decision on this.

>> and you can know fairly quickly in a jury room which way it's going to go because often, but not always. often, one of the things that jury does is goes behind closed doors. it takes an initial poll about where they all stan and that's when you figure out how much back-and-forth will there really be over the next several hours or maybe? >> monday's what's incredible about this case compared to so many others that i've covered, is that i've personally been here every day. you have as well. we see every single word that is uttered inside that court it's unclear to me how this is going to go. you listened to legal analysts, legal experts, people have opinions across the entire spectrum from acquittal to complete conviction to mixed some sort of mixed verdict. >> but you think of 12 people, 34 counts. >> this stakes, the complexity. >> it is absolutely unclear hear how this is going to go, but what happens in that jury room? i agree there's gonna be a lot of questions and this could take some time and i think given the stakes, given who we're talking about, what we're talking about the odds of this getting heated inside that jury room. is probably pretty high and we know these folks have all been paying

attention. they likely all have drawn some of their own conclusions and it's going to take quite a bit of time, i think to reach any kind of consensus, if if they can even reach a consensus, questions about doubt, reasonable doubt tend to be good for the defense. questions about the the mountain of evidence. well, what about the details on this singular document? how should we read that if they're paying attention to the physical evidence, the prosecution might likely be happier. >> also, does some of them believed michael cohen, did they believe? we've parts of michael cohen's testimony? how do they all feel about that is also going to be part of this. and for the trump team, i mean, they're bracing for a guilty verdict here, but trump himself based on what i've heard that he's been saying to people, still seems to be holding out he always has this idea that he personally can sway people and that his presence, that he is sometimes i'm just the exception. two things that that he could be acquitted by these jurors. he's looked at them every day as well as they've come into that room, exited that room and sat there and listened to the mountains sounds of testimony. >> well, i think that's probably wishful thinking based

on everything that we know, but that's not uncommon for defendants, right? it's an extraordinarily stressful, miserable thing too. be a criminal defendants. i think a lot of people tell themselves that as i understand it from talking by sources that his legal team, they believe the best hope likely hope for them is a deadlock jury. but what they're concerned about is that the jury comes back and they are deadlocked. what happens in the state of new york is the judge will issue what is called an allen charge or dynamite charge. and there he will hello, the jury. he will say, look, i'm going to send you back to continue deliberating tried to find some consensus to avoid a mistrial and a told there's a concern that if the jury gets that instruction, that they may feel pressure, the weight of this case, the historic nature of the resources that have been expanded and they may then try to compromise and maybe convicted on a few charges. there, especially worried about the checks that he signed. so they believe that even if the jury comes back initially on their deadlock, they're not out of the woods, but they pretty much take a deadlocked jury style is their greatest hope here. >> but also i imagine he'll tell them just because it's

unpleasant in that room or being here for seven weeks now, that doesn't mean you should make a decision just because you want get up and go home that you still have to execute your ability as a fair juror to come to the best decision possible. >> he'll send them back what they decided to do once they're back is up to them. >> yeah. jake, obviously notable, we could just be minutes away from all the jury being in that jury room absolutely, caitlin, thanks so much. >> and let's let's talk more about what they have to think about and contemplate one of the interesting notes. let's, if we go to full screen 48 is josh steinglass the prosecutor in his closing statement yesterday acknowledging michael cohen's frailties as as a star witness, we didn't choose michael cohen to be our witness. we didn't pick him up at the witness store. steinglass said the defendant chose michael cohen as his fixer because he was willing to

lie and cheat on mr. trump's behalf. karen, you think i know that that's even though we all got to giggle out of witness store yesterday. i know this is this is not unknown to be said by prosecutors in trials, but you think that's going to be effective, pretend potentially. >> i mean like yes, another another common phrase, prosecutors use is i wish that a crime would be committed in front of a bus full of nuns, but it's not. and people who commit crimes tend to be around found other like-minded people. and you get a cast of characters chosen by the person who's committing the crime, especially in a conspiracy where people get together and agree to commit a crime together. and so you're left with who you're left with, and donald trump, i mean, i think the jury will see that the people donald trump's surrounded himself back in in 2016 and 2017. and even before that, we're we're him with a porn star. we're him with david pecker and he were close friends right? i mean, that was a whole other colorful person

and he it's it's i think you said yesterday, it's like the bar scene in star wars, right? i mean, it's really fascinating to see the type and quality people that donald trump has around him and michael cohen is exhibit a yeah, mosley is cantina is precisely what it is. >> what it is. but in any case nerd factor, notwithstanding, if we go to full screen 43, something that todd blanche said, the defense attorney about michael cohen, he's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt literally he lied to you repeatedly. he lied many, many, many times before you even met him. he's literally the greatest liar of all time. but gloat, gl you at and this elie is this was the main thrust. i think it's fair to say of the defense's closing arguments. how could you go by what this man is saying? he even leinz to you? jury, right. number sean

has to explaining motive jurors, and the difference between motive and intent. what is the difference glad you asked that motive is the reason why you do something. >> for example, i'm going to i'll use the bank robbery example. everyone always does. i'm going my motive for going into robbing the bank is to get money or i guess the argument here would be the motive for what donald trump did was to try to rig the election or favorite self and the election intent is much more simple than that intent just means, do you understand the nature of what it is you're doing like are you of right mind? it's a much lower standard, it's also more relevant. the jury does not have to find motive. they don't have to find why they only have to find intent that he knew and understood what was happening around him, essentially, let's turn to anna a kamensky. she's the director of the criminal defense clinic at new york law school, also with us david oscar marcus. he's a criminal defense attorney who was approached to be part of donald trump's legal team and the classified documents case. but he declined and let me start with you. what do you make? of the case? so

far do you think that the defense has proven reasonable doubt well, so the defense doesn't have any burden here. >> so the question is whether the prosecution has met their burden. okay. >> and i've said this before and i'll say it again if the jury a value weights every witness that they've seen and they expect the testimony of every witness they accept all the documents. they don't question anything about the recordings. they could find that the prosecution has proven their case, but that's a very big f. and one of the things that we don't get to see right when we're out here and there and there valuating the testimony, evaluating how people testify is, it's not just the words, but it's how they're spoken, how the jury's perceiving that. and so that credibility determination is really going to be huge here. and that's something that we just can't tell, right? that's what's going to happen when they go back and they

deliberate, that's what they're really going to be talking about right now. when side that courtroom, judge merchan still giving the jury instructions, telling the jurors that on each count, all 34 of them, their verdict must be unanimous. david oscar, marcus, what do you think of the case? right now as the jurors are prepared to take all the evidence that's been presented over the last month and make a decision merchan by the way, saying that is each and every juror much must agree to it in case anybody in the jury did not know what unanimous meant that it has now been defined for them, the judge's now giving instructions about how the jury should deliberate. david the jury must be overwhelmed. i mean, to have all of these instructions just read to them without them getting a copy is going to be overwhelming for them. and also, it's crazy that the lawyers were not able to discuss the instructions in their closings yesterday, typically, lawyers can go through the instructions and explain why they've met them or why the government hasn't

met them. and they weren't able to do that yesterday, which i find bizarre. i think the lawyer should have been able to do that because the jurors right now must be wondering, what is this all about? >> yeah, judge merchan saying right now, when you deliberate you should do so with a view toward reaching an agreement. if that can be done without surrendering surrendering individual judgment and a why was it not done? why were these instructions not given yesterday? so the lawyers would have them as they made their closing arguments well given the complexity of this case and the arguments that we know have been made about the interpretations of these laws, right? i think what the judge was doing was saying, i'm not i do not want that line crossed. i am the one who provides the jurors with the law. you provide them with your arguments about the facts what conclusions and characterizatio ns you want to draw. and so i'm going to make sure that stays firmly with me and therefore, neither side gets to

have the instructions read from the instructions. i agree it's it's it's a hard balance trying to figure out how much law can you incorporate into your summation and how should be left to the judge when we know that it is that ultimately the judge's job on the other hand, is lawyers. we want to be able to point the jurors to specific things, whether it's as the prosecutor saying, here's how i've met my burden or as the defense saying, here's how they've failed to meet their burden. >> so write m or amazon is saying you, you may also have the testimony of any witness, red band back to you in whole or in part when you deliberate, you should do so with a view towards reaching an agreement. and just giving instructions as to how they are supposed to go about this process. merchan tells the jury, under the law, the first juror are selected as the foreperson. several jurors turn to look at the man seated in the first seat. merchan also telling them you may seek any and all of the exhibits that were received into evidence. you may also have the testimony of any witness read back to you in whole or in part so david,

again, these are these are fairly standard instructions, but as you note, a pretty momentous decision for them well, it is a weird quirk in new york law that the foreperson is selected already in most courts, the jury would elect their own foreperson and start their deliberations that way. >> so i think that is a little odd. there's a bunch of odd things that we've seen in new york law like will prosecution getting their full clothes? supposing last as opposed to going first and last where the defense gets to response. so i think the fact that the jurors know who the person is looked at them was interesting. to start the deliberations out summer, sean is telling he's describing the process of how the verdict itself will play out. >> he said the foreperson will be asked if the jury has reached a verdict, and then the foreperson will read out the verdict for each of the 34 counts. again, this is pretty standard stuff, but it does take on the weights of the fact that a former president of the

united states is the defendant in this case but this is pretty, pretty standard. anna how often do jurors ask for and i do this probably no study on this or anything like that. but in your experience, how often do jurors ask for something to be read back to the jury or for an exhibit to be introduced? >> so quite often in particular, when you have a case that's gone on, like this case has over several weeks with 22 witnesses. it's very common for them to ask for read backs. and of course then what will happen is when they ask for read backs, all of us will start reading to why did they ask for that particular portion? what is it that we think that we're doing? where do we think they're leaning? and so that will be telling to us if they do start to ask for read backs, but it would not surprise me at all if they did ask for rebecca, given the length of the case, the number of witnesses, the number of

documents. >> all right. anna kamensky you david asked her marcus, thanks to both. you appreciate it judge merchan right now saying the jurors will be polled individually if they agree with the verdict at the request of the parties, meaning that won't necessarily happen in less the defense or the prosecution requests. each juror to stand up and say how they feel about each one of these counts where sean says he added how did language on the verdict sheet to make clear which count pertains to a voucher and invoice or check and the documents relevant date because the actual counts don't have that. so he is added that information. it might just say falsification of business records on april 14, i'm making it up. 2017. he judge merchan has now added that additional information so that they can understand better each one of these 34 chances, 34 charges trump has just passed another note to todd blanche's attorney. blanche wrote a response and trump held the paper up close to his face

to read it before placing it back on the table. the judge is saying that jurors may only discuss the case when all 12 jurors are together, mug shots as a jury will work until 4:30 p.m. east coast time today, we will figure out the other days going forward. he said what's what's normal for a case like this in terms of how long the jury we'll take well, is there a normal there is not a normal. they're also they're going to they if the jury wants stay lay going forward, it's unlikely they'd worked later than 6:00 p.m. so again, unless they were right close to avert, they were close to berg and they can request that the judge has now concluded is jury charge, meaning the instructions portions is over and the judge the judge has just concluded his instructions to the jury, so we are now at them a moment where the jury is about to be dismissed as not the word, but they're allowed to go into the jury room. >> and the case will be in the hands of these 12 men and women. and of course, remember that there were alternatives

that were present throughout the course duration, or they just dismissed, they will go to a different part of the courtroom. wait for the time that the actual jurors are deliberating because they might be called on for any reason, it's actually pretty surprising up to now. they hadn't had anyone be replaced at this point in time, but they will be available to be there in case there is that moment and they will have heard all the evidence, all the instructions as well. now, the lawyer is a conferring at the bench at this point in time, but this is such a consequential up till now. they've been talked at, now they will talk with one another that includes a course. two. attorneys were present, but what they're going to have back there is not the question of haiti. i think donald trump is guilty. >> it's 34 separate counts of falsified business documents, invoices, ledgers, and checks. >> and for each one of those things, they have to decide whether they're with the intent to defraud to commit another crime, to conceal the commission and other crime was a false entraining up, putting up i didn't put the topic because she'd been so happy, but my tabitha you a branch here.

>> i'm not have so for every one of these 34 accounts, they've got to prove the following things. >> each of these things right, talking about perhaps one of the most important part of the idea of making are causing a false entry why? because he need not be the person to have actually written the false entry. and remember they look like the different dates. all these different dates we're talking about are all going to be the moments in time this jury has to decide these various issues and it's going to be quite consequential. remember, here's we're talking about 11 invoices, 12 vouchers there is 11 checks, essentially, all or possible for this judd, this jury to essentially have a variety of up to 34, by the way, if everybody is what the more than 34 counts are, good, give it again that there are 34 counts and they break down 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, and 11 different checks. now 12 vouchers. well, the ledgers and

that can be part of it and the reimbursement, this is how the prosecution has put their exhibit in front of the jury on these very important points while those while those things may be tied together, yep, they are the individual charges. >> right. so the jury will sort of look at them individually, each one, even though as a system an invoice, a check or whatever may be perceived as something of a hole. >> right? right. but it can be it could be five guilty and 29 guilty, et cetera. but they're just one quick thing judge. merchan wanted one clarification telling the foreperson of the jury, don't sign the form with your actual name, right? an important thing for his right guys, we know what we know, it's a him his safety because it's actually pretty remarkable that nobody has been doxxed at this point on the jury thank god. we don't want them to, but that nobody has been outed as a member of the jury. that's really knowingly chase down a street good or any of that that we know of been taken different

locations. we've heard after the conclusion of every day of trial and brought to unknown places. but remember, they have to decide to your point, they have to decide whether there is acquittal or conviction on each of those 34 different documents. and there are to go back to tablet there are possible outcomes here. >> it could be a mixed verdict, it could be guilty on all counts and every single one of them. >> it could be an acquittal or it could be this mixed verdict here and why this is important is because the reason that the defense was trying to suggest at least about the idea of michael cohen padding the invoices. it could be that they suggest that unknown those documents handed in by michael cohen, that trump did not have the requisite amount of knowledge or intent. they can also have a hung jury and they would have to have in what's called an allen charge them to go back and consider and get to an alto result. >> there could also be a directed verdict where the judge as likely to do so could essentially say, well, i don't believe that what you have decided is appropriate and i can make a different outcome, but there's a lot of things now the point is, it's all in the jury's hands now, and the prosecution and the defense can

do nothing more. >> they cannot speak with the jurors. they cannot try to engage only these 12 can converse with one another. >> here has been on a jury before. who? okay. karen, grand jury, not a trial that doesn't count a grand jury and karen, so i have questions for your judge. judge, i'm saying i was just clarifying. how are we going to handle the evidence? i'm told there was a laptop that contains all the evidence. he asks for volunteers to be taught how to use the laptop. wow, jurors four and six volunteered those jurors foreign six, they're are always they always have that can-do american attitude what's your number four is a security engineer just and this soccer is a software. >> okay. well, that's all we want to know about them, but that's always the jurors are now leaving the courtroom to deliberate the alternatives are staying behind there there the jurors there, they are and as you said, jamie, juror number for security engineer no social media is shockingly three kids juror six software engineer,

and a recent college graduate. wow, imagine if you just graduated in, this is your entry into the real world. yes. the interesting thing about that lap top that they're sending back with the juror that has the jurors that has the evidence on it they have to make sure that that laptop is wiped, clean of any other evidence from prior cases, prior trials. >> so it's actually a special trial laptop that goes through a special each bit get rid of everything that we've talked about in previous years. so let me ask you a question. karen and jamie, i'm not going to count you, david, because it's a grand jury what do you do when you get into the room? what happens? you sit down and you a poll everybody like what happened. >> so i was surprised that i was picked for a jury. it was actually a civil case. i was working at the manhattan da's office at the time and they pick me for a civil jury and everyone including myself thought i was going to be the leader of the jury room because i'm a lawyer and i'm a trial

lawyer and we've got back there and it turned out just by evolution, i was not i was by far not the leader because i had a strong opinion there was another there was a group of us who felt a certain way, and therefore, i didn't have much to say because there's no question in my mind. there was a whole other group that had a different point of view. and there was a gentleman who so i'll never forget he was a bartender and he was the guy who was like, well, what about this and what about that? and he just evolved as the leader of the jury room and brought us all around myself included to a particular place. again, it was civil, so it wasn't it was not about a criminal conviction, it was about liability. the thing that fascinated me the most about it was all the things is trial lawyers you think matter didn't matter. it wasn't about the show, wasn't about the performance, it wasn't about the expression on your face to make sure that oh, i

looking confident in front of the jury, it was none of that. it was none the things even the spin juries are like their bs detectors they can tell when you're spinning what we tried to do and what every single person in that room tried to do was to get to the bottom of what the truth is. okay. i could tell she was trying to influence me by doing this and i can tell he was that was a little to show for me. but what i saw was the fact that melania trump wasn't there standing, sitting by her husband. they see those things they see that things that nobody is saying that nobody's pointing where you're being hypothetical, there your class did not involve braille, just told people, people misunderstand just a couple of updates. the jurors have left the courtroom. you see on the left side of your screen there, that is how long the jury has been deliberating, three minutes and

yes, we're going to have that up until there's a verdict thank you very much. i hope you like it, judge merchan has also asked, are thanked rather, the alternate jurors. remember there are 12 jurors, seven men, five women, and then there are also six alternates that shockingly they have not had to dip into and grab because the 12 original jurors are still there but as as we discussed already, those six alternates have not been excused. the judge thank them for their diligence. he said, we're not going to excuse you just yet, please remain with us because there might be a need for you at some point during deliberations, verjee merchan is now clarifying the instruction he gave earlier. the panel will have free access to the evidence laptop so they won't have to ask for a piece of evidence every time they want to look at something escalator. >> so that is something when the judge called the parties up to the bench, that is something they would have had to have gotten them to agree on because the evidence does not normally go back to the jury they usually have to ask for it. >> they'll send a note. i would like this piece of the evidence and then the lawyers go crazy trying to read the tea

leaves and figure out so we're not going to, we're not going to have that. they have it all on the laptop and they're just going to say, hey, can you give me stormy daniels testimony on de two? >> that's not evidence. that's not what they're that's not evit. it's evidenced, but that's not what they're talking about. they're talking about, they're talking about the physical evidence. they're talking about documents. check. right? check with endorsed check. any item that was introduced in that was introduced and received into evidence as people's exhibit number one or people's exhibit number 23, defense exhibit a. defense exhibit b. >> so it can't rewind someone's testimony. any play that back. that's the important part. if i can they can't do that. on that laptop if they want testimony, which is also considered evidence. if they want testimony and they're going to have to request after request, read back, and i'll read back. they can actually get the paper. so they asked why? >> well, why, and then we said in the wet, interestingly, they can can ask for portions of

testimony and then the lawyers so you can have a note that says, i want the part of stormy daniels testimony that describes having xy donald trump, but they don't specify direct or cross. for example, the lawyers will then have a discussion with the judge. do we just give them direct do we give them direct and cross du we give them both that sort of those who does the meeting back? the court reporters. so then so then the court reporter, it takes time. the court reporter. then we'll take 15, 20, sometimes an hour to go through the testimony on their machine and find a portions that are responsive to the notes all the parties have to agree, then they call the jury back in, and then the court reporter reads it in painstaking real time to the jury. so read back and notes and things can take out what that sounds like a great procedure in the year 18, 36 right now, jurors four and six are being instructed by a

paralegal little da's office on how to use the laptop todd blanche and defense attorney and susan hoffinger from the prosecution are standing close and looking on kaitlan collins back to you now, the jury, of course, will be inside that room, says they've been deliberating for seven minutes. we'll give it a little wiggle room given they're still learning how to use the laptop. and paula dot, the two jurors who volunteered to be the custodians of the laptop. i should note, we know one is a security engineer is juror number four. number six is a software engineer, so that at least they pick two good members of the team to be in charge of, of what is going to be important as there in that room all together, looking through this laptop, it as steinglass, the prosecutor is making his closing arguing history. he kept saying, you can go back and look get this. you can go back and look at this check this exhibit. he said it so many times that it seemed to be reminding them, hey, you can look at this when you're inside this room tomorrow because they believe that this case can be one on the physical evidence. now, we have the graphic of the jury up right now to remind people,

we've all been in the courtroom, we've seen this jury, but to remind people what cross-section of humanity you have here, i remember the first time i saw the jury and there i thought, wow, if you took the first 18 people because they are 12 jurors and six alternates, just getting off the subway car anywhere in manhattan, they'd probably look like this group took a butterfly net just on the street one day. these are the first 18 people you might come across. definitely a representative sample of the diversity of manhattan. and this is going to be fascinating to see what they do with the facts and the evidence they've been presented, although on our screen, they all look remarkably like. oh, no, i didn't know what the prosecution make its case he kept on referring you can go back and look at this evidence and i think it was twofold. number one, they were trying to explain to the jury, we have physical evidence. it's not just michael cohen. there is this stopped to look at. and i also do think that they think it advantages them if they're going back to look into check that has donald trump's signature on it? yeah. and the two jurors have left the courtroom after learning how to use the the evidence laptop, they probably didn't. hopefully it's up-to-date technology, not much technology

inside that courthouse. i should note is and judge merchan has confirmed with trump's attorney todd blanche that his client consented to the jury receiving this laptop with the evidence, blanche confirms he and susan hoffinger from the prosecution team were standing there as these two jurors were, we're making sure they knew how to use this laptop because it's a quarter go moment now that they are going into this room, they all have to stay in there as they're deliberating until at least four 30 today, we know as they are going to begin going through every everything the judge just whatever with them. >> yeah. i'm sure todd blanche is necklace. we're looking at that laptop with an eye to any potential appeal if there is a conviction that has been their strategies since the beginning rack up any possible objection. any possible problems. so if there is a conviction that they can appeal and tried to overturn it, and the strategy that's been described to me as well death by 1,000 cuts. i'm sure they were watching very carefully to see if there was anything that they could bring up about that laptop will end an important note that we just just passed by. the judge said, i'm going to be in the robing

room for a little while just in case we get a quick note in the jury asking for a question for the read back of some testimony now i'll probably go upstairs. i do direct all of you to please be here. you cannot leave the building. that's what we're reporting earlier. >> trump and his team, they will stay in the courtroom necessarily they have another room where their attorneys has it been working out up, but trump himself has to remain inside this courthouse behind us as long as the jury is they are deliberating by suppose we could get a truth social updatn that necessarily politically or legally. >> it were i him, but it is possible they do that and i do think he will feel helpless as he is trapped inside a room at this somewhat dingy courthouse for maybe the rest of the day, maybe tomorrow, maybe beyond that. >> who knows yeah. >> and we're watching if you can see there in the bottom right corner of your screen the former president is about to walk out of that room. there there's a meal, beauvais, one of his attorneys. it is often flanking him as you can see, they're taking a quick der and donald trump junior few others, susan nicholas, as you saw, just walked out there. that's karoline leavitt, i believe from the campaign, natalie harb

steven chung, trump's campaign spokesperson. steve witkoff, a donor and you can see other members of the trump legal team and posse that are leaving side that courtroom is they're going to go into a room. it's not clear which are impala, they're going to go into. there's two, one that trump would go into that was quite small. so when described it to me is 20 by 15 feat that they would go into for those brief breaks, but they do have a larger room where the other attorneys were huddling and working out of while they were in the lunch breaks or the bigger breaks as they been inside? this courthouse. there's nothing grand or fancy about this courthouse that's for sure far less impressive than other federal courthouses where he's had cases and had to wait for a time during this initial hearings, but he rules date. not only does he have secret service protection, but he has his legal team is adjacent legal advisors that's todd blanche right there again, middle, i believe it let's turn his head a little hobby. >> you can see, i think trump is off to the right, which is interesting. they're, they're

kinda just standing outside the courtroom door right here. it's not clear what they're deliberating to come over. obviously, you can see where the camera position isn't said that hallway that's where trump often comes and speaks it's not clear if they're deliberating whether you should speak to the cameras. i mean, that would be based on todd blanche's sort of motions, just stipulation right now. i'm going to get that that is the conversation would have this trying to ease some of the tension with humor. i know that's a strategy he's used out with his client but i'm guessing given their proximity to the camera and the fact that it is todd appearing to talk to his client. this is i think probably most likely a conversation about whether he wants to address cameras because as we reported earlier, he did not do that going in, which is highly well if someone's watching, i'm wondering why didn't they just talk about this inside the courtroom? obviously, the courtroom is full of rows of press and a few members of the public also typically the da's team is still in there. they often have waited until after trump's team has left before trump exits the room, they're still standing there right outside the door there's donald

trump, and it does look like he is in fact coming to address the cameras, which i should note, we will be listening. he didn't speak last night or this morning going into the courtroom. but now he is prepared as the three is in a room deliberating or would speak to the cameras? >> it listening to the charges from the judge who's as you know, very conflicted because of the infliction very very mother teresa could not be discharged these charges are rigged all thing is rigged the whole country's of ness between the borders fake elections and you haven't drought like this with a judge is so conflicted again, breathe he's got to do his job and that from me that i can tell you it's a disgrace. and i mean that mother racing the dumping those charges, but we'll see we'll see how we do. it's a very discretional situation. every single legal

scholar and experts said no case. it shouldn't be brought. and it certainly could have been brought seven years ago not in the middle of a presidential election. it was all done by joe biden judge contributed to joe biden and far worse than that, but i'm not allowed to talk about it because i have a gag order far worse than that by 1,000 times, moore said that the worst i've ever but i can't talk about it. >> it'll be talked about, but i'm not allowed to talk about it. >> but it'll be talking about in the history books what's happening here is weaponization in level that nobody has seen before i ever than shouldn't be allowed to happen. so i'll stay around here. this is five weeks then five weeks of really essentially not campaigning, although i took a big lead in the polls over the last few weeks, something's going on because i think the people of this country see that this is a rig deal. it's a weaponize deal for the democrats to hit their political opponents for

job by the worst, the worst president in the history of the united states is two drawing your country's letting millions of people from jails, from prisons, from enceladus alums, from mental institutions drug dealers, porin venezuela. if you look at their crime statistics and gun down 72% in drag because they're released, they all the criminals into our country this horrible president that we have and then they have a protest of robert dunn areas that is a fool is broken down four standing out there. he got he got magen they got magen yesterday, got a big dose other but i just want to say it's a very unfair drown should have never happened the who is going to happen and should happen seven years ago as you know, greg didn't want to bring it the southern district didn't bring it. the fec didn't bring it. this, judge, indian let us use the number one election attorney. he's making the

rules. he does not anything about elections is an ordered thing about voting in vote counts we just know anything about this stuff that's not theirs profession we add the leading election expert in the country, brad smith, ready to testify, wouldn't let him know they wouldn't let another gentleman who represented and, you know, very well, you saw and it was the worst i think i've ever seen the new were treated. understand bob costello wouldn't let him talk about all of the hundreds of emails that were sent by a gentleman and another gentleman who i can't mention because i'm gagged. every time i speak to you. yes, we simple questions have not allowed to give you the answer because of a gag by miscarriage but we have a very, very serious problem. i mean, i country's going bad. >> and remember and let me just leave you with this. >> this is all because of joe biden, is and i not even thing gets him. i don't that you're smart enough to think about it, but some people that's around

him in the office, this marked their fascist at communist with this their running our country but we're going to win this election november 5 is going to be the most important day in the history of our country. we're going to take back our country these fascists and these thugs that are destroying us with inflation and with everything they do how stupid they are allowing 15, 16 17 million people into our country. totally unvetted, totally, and check, we're going to bring back our nation november 5th. remember, most important day? >> in the history of our country. and the meantime, this trial is reagan thank you for those are the comments of the former president as far as comments since the jury begin deliberating and his criminal hush money trial, not seeming to believe there's going to be a positive outcome as he claimed that mother teresa could not beat the charges that are facing him there. >> you see, he is surrounded by

his entourage. he also made several false claims while he was there. we'll get to those with our fact check fact checker, daniel dale in a moment, and paula reid, though, just to hear trump, as he was as he chose not to speak last night, he chose not to speak this morning coming into the room and then you saw that remarkable moment that we have not seen so far in this case, typically, it's quite clear when trump is leaving the courtroom that he's going to speak to cameras carries his comments in hand that he's going to read to the cameras he came up and decided to criticize the case, criticize the instructions that the jury just heard. claim falsely that this is being done at the behest of president biden, which it's not. but what is important there is not even just the words themselves. it's that he clearly does not believe there's a positive outcome for him waiting at the other end of these jury deliberations. >> yeah, that's exactly right. and it's interesting, both sides of this case framing it as election preference. prosecutors have continued to try to re-brand it from the hush money case to a 2016 election interference case. and the trump team doing the same

thing, arguing that these have only been brought in an election year. this is his argument in the court of public opinion and includes falsehoods trying to link this prosecution to president biden, which again, that is it's just not true, but this is how he's trying to frame it and definitely does not appear optimistic about his odds here. and as i've been told repeatedly, they believe the best likely outcome for them for most people, the best outcome would be an acquittal for them, the best likely outcome is a deadlocked jury and we also, daniel dale here with us, as i mentioned, daniel dale, i don't know you fact check all of these before. i believe i don't think any of these will be new to you. you and i've been on together several times to fact check the claim about people emptying. there are insane asylums countries and sending them to the united states, which i know there's no basis for also his claims wrongly that president biden is so one driving this one, of course, he was indicted by a jury of his peers here, and it is the manhattan district attorney, alvin bragg, who brought this case. >> yeah. you barely need me anymore. you got these fact checks down. everything you said is correct.

>> also referred to the fake elections in this country of vaguer than usual reference does false claims, his lies that the 2020 election was rigged. we have entirely legitimate elections in this country, including the 2020 election. he lost. >> he also used this figure. he's had 151,617 million people being let in over the border under joe biden, those are wildly exaggerated figures were under 10 million, so-called encounters that includes many millions who are sent back under title 42 after they were encountered. so not all of them were let in and i think a point of clarification. he says something true. he said that judge merchan had donated to president biden to joe biden his campaign. that is true, but i think it's important to note that the amount of the donation was $15, so just a point of fact, there well, and that's why whenever he claimed he said the judges so conflicted that he quote, can't breathe, was his quote. i mean, that has been something that trump has long claimed during this trial. i should note is someone who's

been in that jury room or in that courthouse that courtroom watching this, the judge often strives a great lengths to be fair to both sides here, but the prosecution and the defense also, this has gone through a process where he was asked if he was two conflicted to preside over this and he was told no. yeah. and caitlin, there's one more thing i should mention. he said that the trump sayyed his defense had a leading election expert and the judges for fuse to allow him to testify. that is not what happened. what happened was the judge, as is common, limited the scope of the possible testimony that this expert could have offered and then trump's defense said, okay, we're just not going to call him at all. so they could have called him to talk about various matters there's maybe it would have helped them. the judge did not completely reject as possible made its own call not to have them up there on the stand yeah that's an important one. >> it was the defensive decided not to call bradley smith to the witness stand. daniel dale. thank you for that. and john berman, obviously what trump is doing here and what his talent

has been ever since he's been in the political sphere is i'm preparing his supporters and the broader public outside of what is going to be likely the outcome here, at least in his eyes, of how he's viewing. >> we'll see. i do think it is notable that as a jury is now 18 minutes and are 22 minutes in. but when he was speaking, it was like what, 5060 minutes and deliberation donald trump was outside hi, not far from where they were saying this is a rig trial. the jury actually deliberating when donald trump was claiming that it's rigueur. i do think that's notable in caitlin, you were wondering what that group of people was talking about with all the lawyers, todd, blanche, susan neck was donald trump junior during donald trump? well, i think they were talking about mother teresa because the donald trump the former president, was as speaking the microphone, donald trump junior at the very same exact moment, maybe even seconds before was treating out the comment about mother teresa. so perhaps they had agreed on which figure what saintly figure they will refer to, who good not get a fair trial in their minds here.

>> yeah. i think mother teresa would like to probably be left out of this, but someone i'd like to bring into this is trial attorney in jury consultant. we're not as two bill. we're not adult where i'm not going to ask you about mother teresa, but but as we are seeing this up clock, which is different with cnn, normally we have a countdown clock on cnn is we're watching this to see is this juries deliberating for waiting for a note to the judge. are any indication of where they are as they're just getting underway in these deliberations, i wonder, as you look at these, these jurors, these 12 jurors, you can see their descriptions, what they do, their life experiences, which jurors do you think are going to be the most critical that you'll be watching as all of this is going on. >> right? well, right away, i think as david marcus mentioned on the last segment, juror number one is now the foreperson. that's different from federal court where the poor person who is elected by the jurors. so you know, that person naturally will be now a leader, whether they want to be or not in the jury room. obviously, we're gonna be looking at the two attorneys but something else i want to

bring up. there are three jurors that our parents and you have to think about, you know, there were some very lewd testimony about donald trump in this trial. and i know the defense wants to say it's not about stormy daniels, it's not about, you know, whatever relationships he might have had. but, you know if their parents of daughters i mean, putting aside how you feel about him, if you're a parent of a daughter that testimony and that evidence, i think really impacted you and might have hit you emotionally. i would be thinking about the three jurors who are parents. >> i think it's four, seven, and eight, who have children. and if their parents have daughters are especially young door so others they might have taken that evidence very, very poorly so how did how did the two attorneys see this? >> because i think another thing that's important to note here is we've got juror number seven, who is a civil litigator obviously, who is handling this juror number three is a corporate attorney as their inside that room, you don't and when they were being selected for this jury they

both made clear at less than a juror number seven dead from what i read, that they're not well-versed in criminal law. this is not their world that they operate in on a daily basis. but does that, how does the other jury the rest of the jury, see that as they're either looking to them for guidance or taking maybe more weight for their views of this given they both are attorneys yeah. >> i think the two attorneys are going to tell the other jurors that they're really not qualified to opine on criminal law. i mean, it's sort of like having a brain surgeon do heart surgery don't want to have that. people just assume that if you're a doctor or like, you know, everything about the body. same thing with lawyers. but i think they're going to acknowledge very quickly to the other jurors. they have no particular expertise that applies to this particular case. they might be able to try to offer something about applying the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt or thing things like that. but i don't think legally speaking, they're going to have much to offer, even though i do believe the

other jurors in the room, we're going to defer to them what about is. there looking at the charges and we just heard what the judge was saying to them about how they should interpret the law, what the charges here are and they're looking at checks that has donald trump's signature on it. >> they're looking at ledgers though, that does not that he did not physically himself put in there that was never the expectation. is there a chance that this jury can see that maybe they'll give greater weight to the checks given they have donald trump signature on it, then they will the ledgers. how does that work for what they could ultimately decide you're on the verdict? >> yeah. i know we've been talking about guilty, not guilty, or hung jury. another real possibility here is a mixed verdict, and that would be where they convict donald trump on the accounts that relate to the checks that have his physical signature because there's no dispute that he knew he was signing those checks. i mean, maybe you could say, well, i'm not sure that he knew about but the ledger entries, but a mixed verdict in the jurors minds, they might think, well, we're giving the defense something we're giving the prosecution something, but

emits verdict is an absolute disaster for the defense because then donald trump is a convicted felon, even if he's convicted of just one count. sometimes defense attorneys take that on, head on and they tell the jury, look, this is all or nothing case. you shouldn't return to mix verdict. you either believe it or you don't. i'm not sure that todd blanche did that, but i'd be very, very concerned about a mixed verdict without us to be all. >> thank you for that. we'll wait to see what that verdict ultimately is important. we just i mean, just looking at this that were 27 minutes into the jury deliberating. it is remarkable when you step back as you were trying to guess what the jury will decide, we have no clue what they're going to ultimately decide and even experts who've been in many cases have said that as well. it is remarkable that right now we are in during delivery for agents for donald trump. i mean, the two of us covered trump in the white house and i don't think, you know, is this story was breaking into thousand 18 is we're learning more about trump's involvement in this to know that it would ever come to this is remarkable in and of itself. >> yeah, at a paperwork crime of all things, one thing trump

does really well as he doesn't leave a trail, he doesn't email, he does not put things in writing, even when he gives a verbal instructions. they're usually sort of indirect. he's very careful not to leave. >> again a paperwork trail of any potential criminal activity. >> so the fact that here he started with 34 counts of falsifying business records. i think that is shocking. i think that alvin bragg is probably shocked that this is the first criminal prosecution of trump that is actually going to trial because of course there are three other criminal cases and it was widely expected that the january 6 federal case brought by by the special counsel, jack smith that would go first, but in large part, because the supreme court did not act faster, we don't know if that will go at all. and it definitely won't go before the election, we get still be a month away from even knowing whether or not that's even close to potentially happening to it is workable in this moment and to see alvin bragg was not in a courtroom today based on our reporting, but he was there all day yesterday

until the very late hours, watching. it's his prosecutor, josh steinglass. was in part of this team that he's assembled here was delivering that lengthy summation, which obviously is part of what's on the jury's mind is there inside that room right now, a lot of pressure on welcome brag, a lot of pressure on the attorneys. also, a lot of pressure on donald trump. and i think it was evidenced in that statement he gave at least at the beginning and you've watched him very closely for years. both of you have he was not full of energy. it was not full of this defined energy rate. it was a little bit i want to see me, but he looked tired, worn down, just frustrated in that moment and will not comment as are 29 minutes into deliberations here, we say we don't know what's going to happen we don't even know how it's going to happen. we don't know how a jury will necessarily approach deliberations. they each go about it in their own different ways. maybe by now it's very possible they've already taken an initial poll about how all of them field, in which case they'll know if they have days to try to convince one or two or three holdouts war, whether they're close to be able to come out in, announced the verdict to the general public

or they may not take a poll. all they may be going through each and every count meticulously and renata was just talking about the foreperson here who is not someone who's elected by the jury? in other federal cases. but here it's just the first peer who selected and he's when they file and he is the first one he's sitting closest to the gallery where the district attorney's team is in his front, two rows, alvin bragg was in the second row yesterday, then it's much reporters and members of the public. he works in sales, he has some college education. we know that he'll be the one who actually it doesn't have to be his note or his question, but he has to put some kind of marking on it, not his name. he passes to judge for sean. if they seek clarification okay. sure mother deliberating. >> yeah. luka, this is a historic position and he didn't choose this. he wasn't chosen. you just happened to be durde number one, but he's going to be the one guiding the jury. three and a lot of ways and also reporting back to the courtroom if they have a question and ultimately, when they come to this historic decision, whatever this verdict is, mixed verdict acquittal conviction he is going to be the one shepherding that. so it's an extraordinary

responsibility that has been thrust onto this manhattan night. >> yeah, jake remarkable. we are now 30 minutes in no clue how long this could all go. >> could be, minutes, could be hours, could be days, it could be weeks, could be months, could be years. we could be here for here so much i don't think we're going to be here, but i am because i am a juror jury virgin, and i've never experienced a jury i'm interested in finding out what it is like karen told us what her experience was like. jamie, you have also served on a jury when you go into that room? is or does the foreperson take a take a survey as or an initial vote? how did you guys do it? >> my impression is that every jury does it slightly differently, but i was on a criminal case, dc superior court. we did take an initial read of the room i think we actually wrote it down on pieces of paper so that other people wouldn't be influenced

quily apparent that the room was divided and we lasted. and i say lasted because people get hungry. people want to go home it was friday, so i think it was two or maybe three days of discussion back and forth, but i'm pretty sure it was a friday. everybody had had enough and we big convict. >> and were you initially a convict? >> i don't remember i was trying to think that i honestly don't remember what i do remember though, is it came down to two words. >> i keep saying which common sense, what people looked around the room and they said via think, he did it, it was a he. and in the end, that was the discussion so can we put up the jury graphic that we have just because this is something that the both the prosecution team and the defense team has. >> and there's are probably

much more detailed so lawyers, i am curious what kind it's up things in addition to the facts that we are sharing with our viewers, such as for juror number four who is one of the one of the two who volunteered to be in charge of a laptop containing the physical evidence. zero. number four, we know is a security engineer. it's a man. no social media, and three children. what other things? and let's remove jurors for from it. and let's remove this jury from it. but what other things might be on a prosecution or defense teams memo when they are when they're just taking notes, what other things are people looking for because you're making an argument to 12 people, right? you're not making a theoretical argument, you're actually trying to figure out what works for these individuals one, we're talking about common sense, what informs that is why you're asking questions on that. >> why do reform about what type of publications they're following? sort of podcasts, et cetera. i mean common sense is

not something that you from the perspective of a prosecutor defense, is just gleaned. it has to be informed by what you're reading, what you're if following. here's why it was curious for some people that you had people who were following cohen's podcasts. while hipaa, who or what, what publications they were reading, how you're able to ascertain what you recall coming in because common sense certainly is not street smarts. it's not just the idea of what do you think walk the dog can talks like a duck. it's also what sounds sounds, and rings true to you. and what do you know about that? things you may have read before now the evidence is going according, the instructions i make this very clear according to the instructions, the evidence is supposed to be the only thing you're using but jurors more performative as in my common sense is going to be gleaned from what i have already brought in with me and what rings true based on my reading, if i can out a point jamie made about her jury experience, you would think if you just took 12 people arbitrarily selected who didn't know each other, put them together room and said,

you have to unanimously decide on anything. where are we ordering lunch today? they would never get there, but as jamie's experience, i'm really for the karen shows, there are enormous institutional pressures in a good way to drive that jury towards unanimity. the judge has already told them your task is if humanly possible, to reach a unanimous verdict. also as jamie's experience shows, if you're in the jury room and you find yourself in a minority of one or two, or three. it's really hard to resist the other nine or ten or 11, especially as the hours tick by and then there's the ultimate sort of judges last resort, which works sometimes, which we've heard referred to as an allen charge. the dynamite charge, defense lawyers hate it, they call it the coercion charge, but if there comes a point where a jury sent this jury sends a note saying, judge, we have a problem, we have stalemate. one of the jurors is not engaging then eventually the judge has the option and he will give this charge, which is quite aggressive. he basically says, you all need to stick with your own minds. but man, get it

together, get back in there. it's your job if humanly possible, to reach a verdict. i've seen that charge actually break stalemate. so the point is, you would guess by the way, i was just doing research on this. so it's fresh in my mind what percentage of jury's hang the best study of this was done in the late 90s, 30,000 cases and concluded 6% of criminal cases hanging. i asked about a dozen da's and fed's and defense lawyers. everyone came out in the single digits, two to 10% still seems like a lot though. >> it's a lie. it's more it's less than you would guess. just how often can you get 12 people to agree? i think the odds of a hung jury are higher here than 6%. but the vast, vast majority of cases do reach you because we don't have any of those studies. is the criminal prosecution of a former everywhere so everyone knows so that when in a city decidedly hostile points of view when you say one, two, or three in a jury, if there on an island to themselves and the pressure of the room, all of

that makes perfect sense in a normal case. >> and i know that they're not supposed to consider who this defendant is or what his position is or the fact that he may be present, united states come next january, but it's impossible for them not to have that present in their mind, which makes that what is happening in this room. or i don't i don't know how it will impact that, but i bet it's different even if you're one on an island given who this defendant is it may not it may not have the same sort of structural pressure inside the room because there's this layer of a political know-how and your life that you bring to that room as well. >> joining us now, i'm sorry, i'll come back to in a second, namely joining us now is stephanie a winston roll-call, former senior adviser to melania trump and author but the bulk of maloney and me, the rise and fall of my friendship with the first lady she's also an ally of the key witness in the prosecution case, michael cohen. stephanie, thanks for joining. so you and michael cohen a lot in common. two former trump family insiders

who now find yourself very much on the outside i know you and michael cohen have become good friends. have you spoken okay into him since his testimony? >> i'm actually reading michael this morning on the street on my way here. he was on his way to getting a cup of coffee with some of his friends. and i think one of most important things that people need to remember about this case is that michael cohen is not on trial i'm not here to defend michael. michael did what he did he's admitted to hit all of those things i mean, i listened to the news constantly and to continuously every time he is introduced the new favorite terminology is calling him a gloat, the greatest liar of all time and i think what's important for people to remember is that the notion and that we could sit here and joke about that almost while the republican presidential nominee is someone who committed over 30 false and

misleading statements while he was the president of the united states he doesn't get that type of introduction. so i also think the facts speak for themselves. i really do i was around during that time with michael and that's what made us such close allies was we were together working for he was it's working for donald trump and i was working for melania trump and we did have a lot of time together where we both witnessed certain activities and behaviors that only we would know and again, have spoken about. >> yeah. i think you're referring to the washington post fact checkers tabulation of 30,000 of falsehoods that donald trump told us president of the united states, if unless i'm mistaken, just to, just to brigham are so many different, i apologize. there were so many different papers. i did somewhere 30, somewhere 31,000, but around that enough? yes. yes. >> so i want to read a portion of trump's attorney todd blanche's closing argument he's the one that referred to michael cohen as the gloat, the greatest liar of all time that

you were referring to in this part of his closing argument, todd blanche and defense attorneys talking about the release of the access hollywood tape, quote, this was an extremely personal event for president trump. nobody and again, i'm just going to state the obvious. nobody wants there family to be subjected to that sort of thing, doesn't matter whether you are running for office, doesn't matter if you are running the apprentice, it just doesn't matter if you're just a normal everyday person in the city, nobody wants their family exposed to that type of story unquote. in this telling of the access hollywood tape story, the release of it the leak of it to the washington post in october 2016 mr. blanche's is portraying donald trump and his family as victims of the access hollywood tape release. and i was wondering what you make of that argument i can't imagine being claiming someone is the victim when those are the words that came out of this individual's mouth. >> and his family really was

concerned. i mean, i had lunch with melania's several days after that, she had canceled her anderson cooper interview. i wrote about it in the daily beast. today where for me it was so shocking to think that melania was willing to put aside the interview and casually have lunch to discuss unfortunately having the word president in the word playing is sy, in this sentence. now, this was more about her, she was, she was nervous. this was the first time that melania felt that the campaign was in trouble. we knew that reince priebus, we knew that everyone around trump that didn't that weren't as close to him as they are now. we're ready to jump ship and that was a very big big concern to her. the campaign meant everything and i'll never forget even when the book fired for it came out and it was very important for her to let me know that the messaging was that on that night it was xi and donald who worked so hard together to make sure that he one and was

victorious. so i really do know this family and i really do understand there complicity with one another to make sure that it's win at all costs. i wish i could say otherwise. there's no reason to claim otherwise if it weren't the case they've learned how to work as a family to make sure that their perception is constantly on hold three of his adult children have been to court this week eric trump, donald trump junior and tiffany trump, eric and don junior were in fact mentioned by the defense attorney hernias because they wrote different they cut different checks to michael cohen from their positions at the trump organization and the defense noted, if this was a conspiracy, how come neither of these two testified kind of trying to use the fact that they were there. >> they're present the

prosecution could have called them. they didn't, which was interesting. something else that's interesting. i'm wondering about your perspective on is the fact that neither ivanka trump his the president's daughter, older daughter, or nor his wife, melania trump, attended any of the court proceedings. does that surprise you at all? >> if you're already i'd love to address first donald junior and eric. sure. of course. it was during the united states attorney general, district of columbia case where i was deposed as well as were they and don junior's deposition clearly state that once donald trump became president, it was he eric and allen weisselberg who were going to be signing off on the checks. >> and there were a lot of other statements that were given that i think people need to look back at during that time including the fact that in weisselberg was involved in the time of the campaign. so it was michael cohen. and so as i but unofficially, so i think it's really important that people but understand that people

closest to the trump's are sometimes not made official for certain reasons there's the capability to do more as far as melania not being in the courtroom, i think that's saving again, we're back to the art of distraction. if they really, really think that during in the verdict, if that's going to really shine this darkness over the verdict and shine light on melania to take away from what's going on. i think that is the only possibility of her showing up ivanka she is

down, no monthly payments fluorine. he's done plumbing work, he's refinished this beautiful

nominee's certainly in this case. >> and david axelrod, let me start with you because something that's different here that we've seen transpire in the last 24 hours is the biden campaign wading into this something that they had stayed away from previously either not really commenting on it, or we're having only campaign aides make remarks about it in press releases. they physically showed up outside the courthouse here yesterday was robert de niro and harry dunn, and my go for known to officers from who are there on january 6 and were beaten by rioters on that day. i just wonder, david, what do you make of this strategy of them getting involved? now? >> yeah, it was quite alert, wasn't it? i mean, the president has been very, very assiduous about not engaging. he's told a few jokes from time to time, made some sidelong comments, but from the white house, even from the campaign, it's been pretty muted and then they turn up on the last day of the trial and

kind of weight into this kind of weird reality show that has become life outside 100 centre street there in new york, the criminal court building. i'm not sure. it redound it to their benefit. why they did it? maybe they wanted to put their stamp on what they expected to happen in this trial. they thought that they said the media was there, but the expected what they should've expected did happen, which was a bunch of trump hecklers engaged robert de niro in a shouting match and zero offered his legal opinion, which is that trump was guilty and i don't know that he's even played a lawyer on on film. >> so i'm not sure that it redound it to their benefit and i'm not sure whether this is a permanent turn and this is going to become a big part of their messaging, or whether they were just reacting to the moment scott, what do you think?

>> well let me just put a finer point on it. the robert de niro stunt blew up in joe biden's face. it was a complete disaster. it was a complete fiasco, but i think it's born out of something that's true about the biden campaign. they are stuck in the mud, are stuck in quicksand or whatever you ever you want it and they are scrambling for something to get them out of it in the month of june, are here at the end of may into june really may be their last best chance. they've got a verdict coming in this case and they've got to debate at the end of the month, if these two things happen, let's just say donald trump is convicted and the debate goes, however it goes, if on july the 1st joe biden is still 38 or 39% and he's still losing in the swing states and he's still losing are roughly tied with trump nationally. if you think there's a panic going on in the democratic party today, give it a month, and then the real panic we'll set in. but i think the stunt and gauging in the trial is just part of this attempt to try to shake the ball and try to shake this campaign, lose it's, it's

stable and it's stagnant for the democrats right now won't david. >> it is remarkable because typically it would be a gift to any candidate if their political opponent was on trial especially for paying hush money to an adult film star in the days leading up to the 2016 election. but, but for the biden campaign, it has been something that they are very cautiously and thinking through how they approach it, because as donald trump, you know, how the electorate receives it and how it works for those independent moderate voters is a major question that we don't know the answer to yet yeah, i think that they were sensitive to the trump has made throughout this trial. he is accused biden of being the hidden hand behind all of these prosecutions, including the one in new york, which was done by a local prosecutor. i always minded amusing that on in the

same biden of being senile and incompetent. and then the mastermind of a national conspiracy against him. but i think that there is a sensitivity among there was a sensitivity in the white house about not lending credence to the idea that this was part of something political. and so they've stayed away from it. i agree with scott that there is a lot of uneasiness among democrats right now and they may see this as opportunity to shake things up. the verdict will depend on this. one of the things that interested me about the strategy though, and they're really leaning into robert de niro. he did an add, a narrated and add that they just released. he he sent they sent out a letter from an email from him today. he he's their problem is with younger there are voters and i'm not sure that trotting out, i have i love robert de niro, but i'm not sure trotting out another octogenarian is necessarily going to solve their problem. i

didn't, i didn't really get it at all. >> well scott, on the other hand will see all the biden campaign continues to handle the sun, the trunk, and by no is facing the very real possibility that he is a convicted felon. we don't know what the jury will decide. they'd been deliberating for just over an hour now still no nodes i should note from this jury to the judge that we're watching closely, but i mean, if he is a convicted felon, obviously, they don't expect it to be a problem with trump's base but they're just going after his base and the this election are going after independent moderate voters and some of them have said in poll schools that yes, it would change the nature of the health they consider this race if it is a convicted felon on the ballot yeah, the group of voters that i am most interested in, if he's convicted, their reaction is older voters trump struggled a little bit compared to other republicans in 2020 was senior citizens. >> they, some of them i did with biden because they got the idea trump didn't care about their health as much as he should have and this time

around, if he's convicted here this is the kind of a case while though i think most of his base won't care, most republicans will yawn senior citizens still remember the before times when these kinds of details about presidential candidates weren't known and people weren't convicted felon. so that's the group i'm looking at senior citizens. how do they react and do they continue to migrate back towards biden? >> scott jennings, david axelrod. great to have you both as we do look at the political impact of this still ahead here though, and especially live coverage is more on the historic nature of this trial and the verdict that we are now counting up to see how long the jury is going to deliberate will continue breaking it all down. >> stay with us in one of the most active 22 seasons, you can't control a tornado. >> what kinds of interventions can we design go in? >> hi to store the premiere of violent earth with liev schreiber, sunday at nine on

cnn if you've been paying attention, it's easy to see prices are going up on just about everything. >> that's why you need to do your wallet a favor and call khartiia. now one call to khartiia, latching into today's low price. so you can george peace of mind, knowing that you're not only protected from mechanical breakdowns but also from those rising rates. >> if you're driving an out of warranty vehicle, car shield offers plans that cover up to 6,000 parts and systems in your car truck, or suv? >> why pay for expensive repairs called car shield. now, before break down my mom to indycar car show, i listened and i say $5,000. you should always listen to your mom when i needed long-term protection at affordable prices, i called car shield.

>> i've been a car show customer for close to seven years, had three vehicles covered and they saved me close to $9,000 car. >> she'll saved me $2,200 car show administrators covers expensive repair, so i don't have to it's so simple. >> a plan to carnassial means we have a vehicle that needs repairs. their administrators. gottschall back but wait, garland's there's more lots more ex machina if you love extras like i do see, i love a plan that includes 24/7 coast-to-coast roadside assistance courtesy, towing, and rental car options too, dark expensive car breakdowns will happen. the difference calling car shield before they do so, listen to anti-bibi and called car shoe. now to protect yourself from rising rates parsley repairs called now, it get yourself a free quote it's not a matter of if your car will break down with, you need to call car shield before your car breaks down. >> car shield gives you a price lot guarantee, which means your monthly price never goes up for as long as you cover your car,

get help paying for expensive repair bills by calling car shield. now call 800 986955, 804, 986955 800, 986955 with moderate to, severe plaque psoriasis, my skin was no longer mine. >> my active psoriatic arthritis joint symptoms held me back don't let symptoms define you emerge as you withdrawn via most people saw 90% clear skin at four months. >> and the majority stake clearer. i'd five years from phi is proven and to significantly reduce joint pain, stiffness, and swelling, it's just six doses a year after to starter doses, cbs allergic reactions may occur, can fire, may increase your risk objection and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms for if you had a vaccine or plan to emerge as you emerge, trim fired ask your doctor about

order i go to facet.com to take our free financial wellness quiz today was stuck in an

infinite time move we save the world the lazarus project, you cesar du night on tnt we're back with our lives special coverage. donald trump's legal fate is now on the hands of 12 and hattan nights in a jury. the final outcome of his hush money cover-up trial. >> a huge question mark right now as we wait to find out what the jury decides and when my panels back with me and naomi leica. >> right now, it's all up to these 12 people. yeah. >> and listen it isn't hard to imagine that of those 12 people there is one that really, really, really likes trump. and we'll be there to take on the other jurors in there. we talked about how of the system is designed to reach consensus. if you think about the identity of trump, the identity of people like trump, and who like

trump, their identity is all about beating the system and standing up against the system and sort of throwing gear in the sands of the system. so listen, i'm sure donald trump is very conflicted. i'm sure he's little nervous here. i imagine there's part of him that believes there is one of these 12 people who is essentially a maga supporter who identifies with him and who has spent the last many years defending him. against all these charges in many ways, can pair it his defense of this and parrot his talking points. so i think it's not hard to imagine that this could go to a hung jury, and that's certainly what donald trump is. >> not at all. and i wanted, i want to dive back into that journey, but you said something interesting that maybe wonder how our defense attorney on the panel tin parlatore, who has had donald trump as a client. what is it like right now for a defendant with this in the hands of these 12 rondos in a courtroom. >> this is right now, this is

the single most mentally torturer is part of a criminal trial because you've done everything you can you can't do anything anymore. >> you just sitting there waiting and in a way it's kind of a little bit more torture is sitting here in the studio because they had this clock here glad they don't have that one hour, 18 minutes? exactly i'm glad we don't have that you know, where we're sitting in the courthouse, but the defendants kinda sitting there staring at you the whole time saying, what we have done different. did we mess this up? should we have added this? was this too much? should we have called costello? should we have done this? >> and so much so that you just have to sit there and say like it's too late, we can do having now and then when each note comes out, what does this mean? the fed will look at his wife. oh good. it just went over an hour and 18 minutes. what does that mean? right? >> and what i use to try to do it and still do is try and find some way to distract them the

idea that he has to stay in the courthouse, which i presume is a combination of security and other concerns. when i was trying case in this court as we go across the street to four-lane is restaurant, which unfortunately is not closed and try to get our minds off it because it will drive the defendant nuts. >> i don't is a good idea to go into a building that has liquor well, you know, you try and stay away from then we're just doing club soda for now. >> but you have to try and keep their mind off of it as much as possible because this is just torture. >> i imagine he's watching cnn right now, or the cable, because he, he loves to watch the it in and fox news and msnbc. and i imagine if you're that might be what he's doing. >> that's unique to this trial. obviously, because normally there's not that live coverage right now, maybe the defendant will be googling all the articles about them and stuff like that, but that's definitely a unique aspect here i'll probably call me later tonight to say i disagree with what you said today. >> but you talked about the

second guessing that that inevitably goes on with any defendant, not just donald trump. i wonder sure. there was this truth, truthsocial posts that he made about the advice of counsel defense, the how it wasn't used and we were talking about that earlier and that was a decision by the defense attorneys. and it had to do with whether or not you could say i was just following the advice of michael cohen who was my my my lawyer at the time. therefore, that was my fans a lawyer was telling me that this was legal, but they decided the defense defense and maybe because it was true, i'm not making a judgment one way or the other that they didn't do that because donald trump wasn't at that meeting and did not get that information. but now i wonder now that you've said this in the second guessing is going on now i wonder if maybe his truth social complaint hey, that he wasn't allowed to introduce this defense. that his defense attorney decided they wouldn't do, right? maybe that was part of the second guessing and i wouldn't put it past him to start second guessing the

things that todd blanche did at this point because there are many ways to attack a conviction. and one of those ways is a collateral attack called ineffective assistance of counsel and so i very rarely agreed upon and used by an appellate court. >> it is very rare. it has happened, but you could be. >> i know a little bit about this new can actually be drunk. a criminal asleep yes. you know, mentally deficient and the appellate court will say now that's fine. that's fine. he got adequate council as long as he wasn't sleeping during the part, you know, he would have changed the outcome. >> okay. yeah. but you can sleep during the trial that maybe now you have to show the council was so ineffective that likely change the outcome. and so yeah, that's that's one thing that i could potentially see him kinda thinking about. we've we should have done this, maybe we should have done that that's why i say this is the worst part. yeah. todd blanche

whatever people think about him, he did not provide ineffective counsel people might just second guess some of the decisions we put it up for a second. the jury for one second, just because i want to point to juror number two, because juror number two, he's an investment banker and he follows trump on truth social. he also follows michael cohen on x, formerly known as twitter, but he follows trump on truth, social and that has been raised. i think ronan farrow brought it up, but that's you were talking about that. >> jamie. because there are made people do you know who have truth, social, who are not trump's supporters other than journalists, i don't know any more potentially promising, you know, anybody. >> just looking at the list he also said this is all public. what that he's followed trump since he became president, quote generally because it was a news item when he would put a tweet out so good to be aware of that. so he also said that juror said he had read trump's

book, the art of the deal yeah. >> i'm doing i'm just saying like endpoint, by the way, there's 11 people that don't have truthsocial. >> so put that into the, into the recipe as well. it is hard to overstate the historic magnitude of the moment we're in right now. so let's bring in some historians, john lens is a professor of american history at princeton university. sean, thanks for joining us. so no matter which way the verdict goes walk us through the significance of this historic moment and how our country will process whatever verdict comes down well great to be here. >> jake. >> the only historical parallel to this, and it's pretty close actually, is the greatest political scandal in american history, which is watergate and the keyword is conceal, what is, what happened in watergate. >> wasn't it was attempt to conceal an elaborate effort to contain a scandal with the idea of trying to protect nixon's

reelection campaign that's pretty, pretty similar. >> one point, even nixon referred to as god, hush money. >> it was about hush money to that was more involved and that's involved here. so it's very much like that historically but it's the only case like it now that's when a historic, when an historian can say how the public is going to deal with it. i don't know. >> but maybe someone was talking my older voters before anybody old enough to remember watergate ought to be seeing it's echoes in this current trial just to, just to play devil's advocate here, i mean, watergate was about the cover off of a burglary as the democratic national committee. >> and this is about the cover up a rendezvous between a venn tv star and the host of the apprentice and a medulla home actress. and something that may or may not have happened in a nevada hotel it's a little relaxed malicious, i would say

no, but no no. no, because look, it's not about the scandal which about the cover up, right? the scandal doesn't matter to his fans, but character of the scandal, i just matter. the point is, they thought of it as a threat to nixon's campaign. they thought it was a threat to trump's campaign. and they find out, found a way to pay hush money, basically a bribe in order to get, rid, of it. they were talking about that. >> that's that's the similarity. >> if it's not as they say, it's not the crime if the cupboard right. that's what brings them together. >> i think that's from watergate, right? yeah, it's not the crime. it's a cover up and we say at every exam, every exam, we should have learned that lesson. >> i know it's me on tattooed on politicians arms what is your take on historical political context of this case? >> his compared to the other cases, the two from the special counsel, the one in georgia, which likely are not going to go to trial before november if ever? >> well, that's actually the important point. i mean, this case is very different obviously. it's a very important case. i think i think it's been minimized is sort of

the runt of the litter, if you will, because it involves a porn star, et cetera, et cetera. but it's very important on its own, right? on, the others, as with the others holding aside the georgia case, which i think is complicated, the keyword here is immunity. bye. think, because what we've seen at the level of the supreme court, let alone what's going on in florida? attempts to basically, give give trump immunity for what he might may or may not have done with a delays. for example, with the supreme court level, the delays in getting the immunity case done, it's basically killed jack smith's case. i think it's going to or at least it looks that way as far aileen cannon have to tell your viewers exactly what she's been up to. this now, this to me isn't even greater stan because this is more systematic. this is a kind of corruption, if you will, of the visual system. epa, very highest levels. but i think might be the greatest result of

this entire affair. if it goes that way tama lance thank you so much. >> good to see you. really appreciated cnn's coverage of jury deliberations and the trump trial continues after we squeeze in this quick break, stay with us when your home needs work, where do you go? >> angie. angie? that's where angie gay man with angie find top rated certified pros in your area plus compare quotes and pricing to help you get all your jobs done well, find top rated certified pros in your area re-add angie.com row sparks engineered for the spontaneous, a dual action

formula with the active ingredients of viagra and sialic faster acting and long-lasting grabbed the moment get started at row.com slash sparks as the earth issues of distress call in the face of appending climate crisis, i would dummy is advancing his agenda for a greener future with an ideal climate to support some of the world's largest solar projects and a grid that's almost completely powered by clean energy. it's the city that nurtures sustainable developing solutions in carbon capture sustainable transportation, and coastal regeneration. i would w0 is helping fast forward uae's sustainable mission i could move like this with bad dental dryness reveries, hyaluronic acid is super moisturizing. >> so i can do this again what i want to thousands of women have restored their vaginal moister join them at reverie.com fam brian, gary, and today we're talking about the biggest misconception there

is about replacement windows i'm here with ted cones, the project manager for renewal by anderson to talk about it yeah, one of the big things we hear from homeowners is i shouldn't need to replace my windows. >> they're just not that old. >> but here's the thing. >> homebuilders put in high-end kitchens and bathrooms and low in windows, just aren't that good. so even if your windows are only seven to ten years old they may still need to be replaced. >> said this so many window companies out there, what's different about your company? >> well, besides being the full service replacement window division of andersen, were the company people tend to call when their particular about their home. they don't want just any old window or any all installed so you're standards for installers are pretty high, right? >> yeah. brian, you can have the best window or door in the world and if it's not installed correctly, it's going to fail. so we don't hire these jack of all trades installers that you've gutters and siding on the side our window installation teams do our windows year in, year out and have done thousands of them anytime a homeowner has to deal with multiple home improvement

companies, they get stuck in the blame game. yeah, with other companies, if there's an issue, the manufacturer blames the installer. the installer blames the manufacturer with us. there's no finger-pointing or blaming each other. we're both the installer and the manufacturer said is it easy for a homeowner to get a price very easy will come out to your house, will assess your current patio door windows, and then we'll give you an exact price. >> that's good for an entire year. >> so that's great information. thank you. >> before may 31st, by one window, patio der or entry door, and get the next one, 40% off. that's 40% off with a minimum purchase of four plus save an extra $200 on your entire purchase with no money down, no monthly payments, and no interest for one year. this office for ends may 31st for a free appointment with renewal by anderson called 180501 power ea trades award-winning trading app makes trading easier with

it's customizable options chain, easy to use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are e-trade from morgan stanley power, e trades easy to use tools may complex trading less complicated custom scans hope you find new trading opportunities while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. >> e-trade from morgan stanley consumer cellular. >> this is sam palmy, healthier this is a bot dial. well, somebody's but just thought i'd love to know that would consumer cellular, you can get the same it makes that coverage as the leading carriers. >> but for up to half the price closed captioning bronchi by meso book.com if you or a loved one have mesothelial will send you a free book to answer questions you may have call now and we'll come to you 808 to one 4,000