back in terms of to the jury instructions. it tells me to the point that was just made. it doesn't mean that everyone is on one side. there could be trying to convince a couple or a lot, but this is progressing. if i'm the prosecution, the way i want it to progress in joey, after all, this is done, this is going to take a while all the read backs we'll take maybe an hour here after that. what are you watching? four do you think this may be it from the jury or do you think there'll be more questions in about what so john heart to tell fits it. we know what their strikes doubling with ripe for based upon what they're asking for, was there conspiracy or a cover up that's the prosecution's theory. so they're going back what it pecker say, what it pecker say to trump what did what did pecker when they met with cohen and trump and hope hicks coming in and out of that meeting. what happened there? we know what their focuses and they wanna be apprised as suspicious typically, what the law is, but they may have additional questions as they go back, we know obviously what their thought processes as of now all right. >> joey for, me jim. thank you

all so very much. it's all there's a lot going on here and a lot we're eating. as you can read on your screen with us, it continues as we speak good morning and welcome to cnn, special coverage of the trump hush money trial. >> i'm jake tapper in washington alongside kaitlan collins in new york this morning, the jury in donald trump's criminal hush money trial is back to work. the seven men and five women will ultimately decide whether a former president is convicted of felony crimes for the first time in the history of the united states of america. and mr. trump is in court awaiting their decision. we just learned that the jury has submitted it, yet another note. this is the third one about yesterday's request for the judge's instruction to be re-read. and another requesting

for headphones to use with the evidence laptop yeah. >> clearly, a tech savvy jury because they asked specifically for a certain kind of headphones here. but take of course before those jurors left yesterday to go home, they asked to re-hear four key pieces of testimony throughout this trial, including from michael cohen and the former national enquirer tabloid king, david pecker and his account of the 2015 trump tower meeting. also pecker's 2016 phone call with donald trump about the former playboy playmate karen mcdougal. and david pecker's testimony about not finalizing a deal, a payment from trump to reimburse ami for mcdougal's rights to her story about her alleged affair with donald trump just moments ago, trump repeated some all too familiar false claims about a rigged trial as he walked into the court as we are waiting for the verdict here, but still getting into the notes as of this moment, paula reid and kristen holmes are here with me. and right now, what the judges doing is he's re-reading the

parts of the instructions that the jury was curious about. and there's one interesting part which was about david pecker's non-prosecution agreement, basically that they could not be could not be prosecuted. it's he was boy us basically on the standard. and what he's reading is you'll recall that testimony you heard about when david pecker was an executive at ami, that they went into a non-prosecution agreement with them federal prosecutors, and basically he was saying this is to help you as a jury assess his credibility. you're not supposed to deduce whether or not anyone else the defendant here committed a crime based on the fact that david pecker entered into that non-prosecution agreement via ami, but it's just to help you assess what he's saying to you on the witness stand, but it's notable that the jury wanted to hear that again, and to the jury's credit, i think we were all little surprised that they wanted to re-hear instructions. >> they had just heard a few hours prior, but in seeing these sort of read back, we have the texts. i get why they probably wanted to rehear this, some of this stuff is really complicated. they wanted to hear things about the hearsay

exception, and here they're getting get into the burden of proof. and of course, if the government has proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to find the defendant guilty, but things like this, again, how you use david pecker's either previous arrangements, previous agreements with the government that is significant, especially when they're clearly looking at evaluating at some of the things that david pecker said. so this makes sense look, i definitely didn't put if the doubt about why they needed to rehear this and reiterate, it is crazy that they don't just give the jury a copy of instructions. >> they have to ask the judge to reread it. and right now, he's reading the part about reasonable doubt and this is a really i mean, this is a critical piece of this question because obviously, and as the instructions laid it out, it would say that it's not beyond all possible doubt, but it's not he's probably guilty. it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt and he also is reiterating an important part that i know the defense obviously cares about. what does that the burden of proof here is not on trump's legal team. it's on the prosecution for making their case here. >> well, exactly. and the defense really cares about that particularly because they want to be pointing to the fact that

there were witnesses who allegedly could have cooperated michael cohen story that the prosecution didn't bring like keith schiller, like allen weisselberg, who is currently in rikers. we believe that they weren't brought up likely because the prosecution didn't think that they would be friendly witnesses. these are people who are still trump loyalists now the judge is saying, whatever you're for verdict may be, it must not rest upon baseless speculation. now this is really interesting because we're talking about two different things here. and this is what the jury wanted to hear about. one baseless speculation, say it can not rest on this, but they also wanted to hear about that rain analogy talking about inference and what you can infer and use it facts for inference so they're clearly getting the difference here and really listening to the difference between speculation and inference as he's going back through these and the judge says, nor may be influenced in any way by bias. he's talking about the decision they'd come to trump is leaning back in his chair with his eyes closed. he has already heard these instructions as well, obviously the one deliberating here,

reminder though trump does have to be in the courthouse anytime that the jury is year, whether it's rehearing instructions or deliberating. the judge says there's no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of another person's statements or testimony. this is where he was saying this isn't a science. you are human beings and you're being asked us to make the decision here. as this fair jury yesterday, he said you were your the judges here of the facts in this case. i'm the judge reading you the instructions, but really it's up to you to make this decision and he says you bring to this process all of your varied experiences. that's how they're making the decisions here by being people absolutely. >> and if you look at this jury, they're absolutely in microcode house of manhattan, as i've said many times, when you just took the first 12 people who hopped off the subway car and he stopped in the entire borough. this is what you would get. this is a diverse group of people 12 people who need to reach consensus on 34 different counts dealing with its historic case on the defendant is someone who brings out a lot of fields. everybody knows him. so this is an extraordinary

task that they have here. and i wouldn't be surprised that they have to have some of these instructions read to them again further down the line is reading the full instructions here or is it just pieces of this that they want read that, read back to them? it appears based on what we're getting is he's reading a portion. it's almost half of it, but by the time he's done, it looks like he will have read i believe it's page just six through 35, 55 pages of instructions. again, that's over half of what they heard yesterday, but these are the rules of the road for them. this is what's going to guide their discussion over the next few days and at the end was where he really got it. >> in the end of the instructions or what it was where he went through every single account get the law is on the falsification of business records. it it's interesting that he's focusing on and what they're asking you about. or other pieces of this that they're not asking about certain specific checks or the laws falsifying business records? they seem to be what they're asking about right now is the bigger picture of this. and right now they're moving on to his instructions on the credibility of the witness. this is which of course is what a lot of this case, if focuses on it is. and that's part of the issue that the prosecution

has had this entire time was the credibility of the witnesses, particularly their main witness, michael cohen, something the defense part of the reason they use that as their main witness as well, because he does have credibility shoes. >> he has been charged with lying in the past. so going through this again and i'll tell you, i talked to a number of legal experts, particularly federal judges, who have had juries in their cortland before pulled juries afterwards. and they say that this is a common issue when a case really lands on one person shoulders, particularly if that person does not have a good record and it clearly the jury wants to go through some of what michael cohen said and even just have asking for both pecker's recollection michael cohen's testimony about that trump tower meeting that goes to show you to some trucks, some kind of trying to get cooperation for what michael cohen is saying when it comes to michael cohen yesterday, when we heard these instructions, i remember when he read out the part that if you believe someone lied on the stand, which defense attorneys have argued that cohen lied on the stand. you

can get rid of part or all of their testimony. and i remember that was an aha or holy crap moment for me because i thought, wow, how are you going to get 12 people to agree on whether michael cohen lied or not and then you get rid of a portion of his testimony or all of his testimony. i think that this is an instruction he's repeating it now that bears a lot of attention because this is something that could really drive the outcome of this case. >> yeah, it's basically choose your own adventure, jake, on whether or not you want to discard part of the witness's testimony. if you thought there were lying or all of it all right. >> caitlin, thank you so much. just the jury continues to deliberate. they have requested transcripts from four key moments in this historic trial and my panels here to walk through the most important aspects of that testimony. what it could mean for how the jury is weighing the case. joining us now, cnn special correspondent j. began gaussian and anchoring chief nationalistic affairs analyst kasie hunt, cnn legal affairs, legal analyst elliot williams, cnn legal analyst elie honig,

cnn legal analyst, karen friedman, agnifilo. so elie before we get into what the testimony that the jury required, requested, they also their second note i've yesterday and i think part of their note today had to do with the instructions that the that the judge gave them the judges right now re-reading his instructions. that's going to take some time tell us what exactly they requested and if you could explain what they were confused about, so the jury specified at the end of their note today that they want to here are the instruction on count one of the indictment, just to reminder there's 34 counts related to falsification of business records. >> one count for each check, each invoice, each ledger entry. it's essentially the same legal elements as to all 34 counts. so it's it's an unusual and unusually complicated chart. there's basically three steps and i think we have visual that will help us along here. step one is falsification of business records under new york law. that is essentially what it sounds like falsifying business records. that's just a

misdemeanor under new york law. >> and the judge is saying, right now, sorry to interrupt you may consider whether a witness's testimony is consistent with the testimony of other witnesses or with other evidence in the case. this has to do with the judge yesterday. i believe this has to do with yesterday, the judge saying, basically you can't entirely trust everything that michael cohen says you should be looking for corroborative evidence since michael cohen is considered, i think accomplice was the word exact that he used. so you should be looking for things that verify what michael cohen said fed whether that is physical evidence or other testimony, and that is what he's getting into. i'm sorry. >> yeah. if there were inconsistencies buy are among witnesses, you may consider whether they were significant inconsistencies related two important facts i'm sorry, those are the key issue of witness credibility. so step one, falsification of business records in order to bump it up to a hello class e felony, which is the lowest of five classes a felony under new york law. prosecutors have to prove that the records were falsified in furtherance of another crime. now, the another crime

here is new york state election law, which says you cannot try to influence an election by unlawful means. >> trump inside the courtroom. sorry. >> ellie. but while you're explaining that, other stuff is going on inside the courtroom the judge is saying the people have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that a charged crime was committed, and he's continuing there, but that the defendant is the person who committed the crime. in other words, the falsification of the business records, even if you determine that that happened you have to determine that donald trump was the one behind it, not just that it happened, that he had something to do with it. the judge is saying, even if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a charged was a crime was committed by someone you cannot convict the defendant of the crime unless you are also convinced beyond a reason in a little doubt, he committed the crime? yes. sorry, on the crime step one, falsification of business records. step two, violating new york state law, meaning influencing election by unlawful means, that gets us to

the third part, which or what are the unlawful means prosecutors here of offered up a menu of three unlawful means. one of them is a federal campaign violation yeah. >> and judge merchan is right now reading the accomplice as a matter of law instruction. >> right. and that's important, especially because it relates to michael cohen. yes. he's an accomplice. the judges said michael cohen's and accomplice. and you have to consider him as an accomplice, which means anything he testified about, correct me if i'm wrong, you have to have verification from another source. you can't just take because word for it since he's accomplished exactly and relevant to the charge itself, michael cohen pled guilty to federal campaign finance crimes, which are sort of incorporated into the third step of the charge here again, there's three menu items. federal campaign finance violations, tax violations, and then falsification of other business records. and what's become a little bit controversial michelle is the judge said, you can choose any of those three options. you don't have to be unanimous as to which one that's caused some controversy. it's probably allowable under new york law

because all they have to show is an intent to commit some other crime. but there are fair questions about whether that's a fair way to charge it. >> yeah, a lot of president president trump's defenders on a took to social media yesterday saying the judges said, they don't even have to be unanimous when it comes to the crime. >> and that is true. >> not true. >> kind of grossly misleading. yeah. they have to be unanimous as to the crime that the dom trump is charged for, which charged with falsifications of business records in the first degree. now this question shin, of how you treat that other crime, and i assure you there was a hot debate among the three of us and another attorney in the green room before i know spicy, we're going to put all your on lawyer violence action. right. but no. >> but seriously, the question of what has to be alleged and proven, i think is an open question but an interesting one legally and how prosecutors you hand your parents, you thought about this quite a bit, even in cases you've argued, well, you're the one carrying that had the burglary metaphor. >> it might have been taken, but the idea is like if

somebody is arrested for trespassing and you and you are the jury's convinced that he was trespassing and it was intent to the surface another crime he was going to trespass to break into the house. they don't have to agree on whether he was going to vandalize the house burglarized the house, or whatever kidnap somebody. they just have to agree that that was trespassing and service of a crime. >> yeah. and so i think that's a great way of putting it because a trespass is the misdemeanor unless you have this general intent to commit a crime, they're in and so a good way to talk about it and the way we were discussing it in the green room was let's say, you've got a burglar who's walking or a person who's walking down the hallway of an apartment building and he's jiggling the door knobs to see which 20 is open, which one can i go in? and once he goes in, if he has a sleeping bag and a toothbrush, he says, oh, i was looking for a place to sleep. prosecutors would have to charge him with a misdemeanor because you have no

proof that he had the intention of committing a crime therein however, if as he's jiggling those doorknobs and he's still steps in and there's a police officer who arrests him right then and there before he can do anything and before he can formulate which crime he's going to commit because he doesn't know which apartment he's going to get into. but you find on his person zip ties, safe crackers, other mask, ski mask, whatever it will prosecutor, bag, maybe carrie? yes. exactly. exactly. a prosecutor is going to charge him with burglary and say he had a general intent. he even he hadn't hadn't formulated this specific intent yet of which crime he was going to commit because he didn't know which apartment was going to be open and what would be there. but he was somebody that i would charge as a prosecutor with burglary because he had the general intent to commit a crime therein that to me is the closest analogy to what's happening here. >> rational prosecutor would

charge that an irrational defense attorney would say, wait a second, this is a legal ambiguity. you're not even articulate and what you're charging our client we have i think that's what happened here and that's some of the chatter that was seen online about this one because people just did not understand and i and i saw all those tweets to grossly misrepresented what the judge had said even brought them. >> but you would acknowledge though, that there is a criticism to make of this idea because donald trump isn't not trespassing. it's a whole different situation and the metaphor yeah works to help explain this to our people, our viewers. but you wouldn't, you would agree that there is a legal there is a valid criticism. oh, wow. question moreover, when, if in fact the former president is convicted and appeals, he will certainly raise this point and it's not gonna be tossed out of court as frivolous or ridiculous argument. its now it's fair for a defendant to raise these questions about was i put on notice of the thing that i was actually charged and ultimately convicted, and the judges right

now reading the requirement to find the defendant guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree. and what exactly that means. and just to just to push this metaphor beyond its use is that that in this in this metaphor, donald trump actually did get into the apartment. i mean, he did, right? i mean, he succeeded succeeded in if you believe the theory of the case, which i'm not saying i do, but if he succeeded in getting in there and time passed and yes, you know yeah. yeah. yeah and the idea that he didn't have the time to formulate the intent and the prosecution actually has a theory about which crimes. >> and so that's the difference here but all three, right? >> correct. >> i actually think he he did all three that they're saying, but it is to a layman, it seems odd that they don't have to be unanimous as to which of the three other crimes that he did. he supposedly did that work. we're committed to sharp. it

would the judge ordinarily instruct the jury on what the another crime is in your scenario it depends on if the prosecution has has specifically picked a theory and is going with that theory and says, this is the crime. then, then it could be, but, but not really not in burglar, judge, has done that here. >> the judge has given an instruction. i think it's worth noting federal election campaign law is extraordinarily complicated. people have written theses about it. you know, how much instruction the judge gave the jury about federal election campaign law. nine sentences. and if they think that's an adequate explanation of federal election campaign law in 19 sentences, i think they're gonna have problems, especially considering the fact that he spoke for more than an hour and is durians destruction and did not allow the defense to present a robust defense when it came to federal election law, including the explanation that the federal election commission did not bring charges against donald. >> well, and the judge limited

the defense, wanted to call a federal election campaign expert. the judge did not prohibit it, but he said you're your expert can only testify in a very limited way. >> so, judge merchan is right now rereading the definitions in the law for enterprise business record and intense, this all has to do with technical aspects of the charge, quote, as i previously explained, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective, or purpose is to do so in order to prove an intent to defraud the people need to prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any particular person or entity. a general intent to defraud any person or entity suffices intent to defraud is also not constricted to an intent to deprive another sheriff property or money and can extend beyond economic concerns. man lawyers do not speak english well sorry guys, you don't all the time. >> oh, wait a second. the next sentence is going to be on intent to commit or conceal another type, another crime. just you wait, jake tapper going to get were told by kara

scannell inside the courtroom that trump's chin is resting on his chest, not clear how awake he is or how much she's paying attention, right now, which by the way, relatable. >> apparently one of our other reporters also says trump picked us head back up and back, is leaning back in his chair for the crime of falsifying business records in the first-degree. judge merchan says the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. under our law, all of the people who has proven intend to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed. >> right. and that's part another piece of what you all were talking about. luck. i think i'm just pulling back the lens mean the thing that i am most interested in here is that the series of things that the jury seems to have asked for all relate to whether or not donald trump was aware of what was going on. and that plays to this intent, right. and was there an intent on the part of the various actors in the rooms? but really this idea of what what was said at that

meeting, is it corroborated along those lines which i actually am subscribing and i'm a little cautious about what we all have to do here for all these hours while we're covering this because i do feel like speculation in terms of what the jury is going to do is a little bit dangerous to engage in quite honestly. but these do seem to be he, the facts that they have laid out. we want to know more about these things. the things that they seem to have laid out, what they have in common is what donald trump knew and what is very significant for our purposes, trying to understand where the jury's heads are at is that of the four bits of testimony they requested. one of them is from michael cohen, three of them are from david pecker. david pecker. the tabloid king, american media incorporated is it was a very important witness for the prosecution. and you think this might bode well for the prosecution that they're asking for this who is a critical witness for the prosecution. and look, we've had some description. we don't

have cameras in the courtroom, but obviously we would also want to protect the jurors. i'm not some curious about how the jurors are reacting to the instructions. but once we see reading back of david pecker's testimony if i was in the courtroom, i would be watching to see j. get any a-ha moments. i'm sure you've seen that, but let me just give some context to remind people about david pecker david pecker laid out for the jury, catch and kill he said he was the eyes and ears of the trump campaign. he testified that he wanted to help him when he said trump was his mentor, he was not a hostile witness. that is still considers him a friend just two quick things at one point, the prosecution asked him, was your principal purpose and entering into the agreement with karen mcdougal, not stormy daniels, to suppress her story so as to

prevent it from influencing the election steinglass asked david pecker pecker replies, yes, it was that kind of testimony. i don't know that that's what they're going to read back, but that's the importance of david pecker and corroborating michael cohen. and we'll talk more about the testimony that the jurors have asked to be read back in a second. >> and everyone stay with me. we're going to squeeze in a quick break as judge john continues to reread parts of his instructions for the jury stay with us. we'll be right back in one of the most active tornado seasons you can't control a tornado what kinds of interventions can we design? go inside the store premiere of violent earth with the liev schreiber. >> sunday had nine on cnn carney is golda. >> it's gotten me. i saw them. that's what i said. gladness. >> carnegie got to me current well, with more flavored got

any car and faster using the finest materials like indulgent memory foam and ultra conforming inner springs for a beautiful mattress and indescribable comfort save up to $800 on select adjustable mattress sets at stearns and foster.com in three seconds. >> why this couple will share a perfect moment we got to sell her houses. >> well is perfect. don't worry, just sell directly to open door, close in a matter of days when life stores open, we'll handle the house is there a tech allergy relief works fast. it last the full 24 hours. so dave can be the deliverer dance okay dave let's be more than our allergies seize the day with zyrtec. steel tools are as tough and dependable as the people who use them this bothers de, given the gift that's built per day, right

now, say $50 on select aka system battery tools that's real still arthritis pain, we say not today. tylenol, eight hour arthritis pain has two layers of relief. the first is past, the second is long-lasting we give you your day bag so you can give it everything. tylenol. number one, doctor recommended for arthritis pain if you have graves disease and blurry vision, need clear answers people with graves could also get thyroid eye disease or ted, which may need a different doctor. >> find a ted is specialist at visit ted.com? >> slowing my cancer from growing and living longer or do things i want from my metastatic breast cancer treatment and with kids golly, i can have both because scaly is a pill that when taken with an aromatase inhibitor, helps delay cancer from growing and has been proven to help people live significantly longer across three separate clinical trials. so i have the confidence to live my life because belly can cause lung

problems or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections, avoid grapefruit during treatment. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain, a change in your heartbeat dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine hardness, loss of appetite, abdomen, pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash are or planned to become pregnant or breastfeeding long live life and long live view ask your doctor about because scaly today we've all done this mel check trust me. i'm good. >> claire v. targets vaginal odor at the source clare v. long-term relief from vaginal odor, itching, and discharge try it. >> i claire v. view.com this is carbonic and so is this. and this is how you can sell us your car visit carbonic and in

your license glider event. >> answer a few questions. and our powerful technology will give you a real offer in seconds. then set a time for us to pick it up and hey, you on the spot carmona zell, your car. the easy way with carmona did you know sling is your favorite news programs for just $40 a month my favorite news, but just $40 a month? my, favorite for just $40 a news for $40 a month sling lets you do that denture wearers can go wild with wild. >> he said cbi denture seals get strong all day, hold thanks to gradual release technology and go wild. c-h bond wildly i melies nonna in washington and this is cnn welcome back to our special coverage of donald

trump's criminal hush money trial right now, judge juan, were sean is rereading the jury instructions that he read to them yesterday, took more than an hour to do it yesterday. this is a requests from the jury. they didn't fully understand what he had told them. let's dive into the testimony that the judge also requested to rehear my panels back with me. i do want to note as we do every time we have her lovely presence that karen friedman agnifilo is of council for a firm that represents michael cohen, though she has no contact with cohen herself. she does not work on that case. there are no restrictions on what you can say about this case, but we're for big believers in disclosure in transparency here at cnn. so karen cohen testified about what he and trump discussed with david pecker at this meeting that the prosecution says happened here is part of what the jury requested to know hoffinger. this is the this is the prosecution could you tell the jury, please what was

discussed and what was agreed to at that meeting? michael cohen, what was discussed was the power of the national enquirer in terms of being located at the cash register of so many supermarkets and bodegas that if we can place positive stories about mr. trump, that would be beneficial, that if we could place negative stories about some of the other candidates that would also be beneficial prosecutor hoffinger was there anything else that mr. pecker that's the head of this tabloid enterprise. mr. pecker said he could also do from mr. trump's candidacy michael cohen? yeah prosecutor hoffinger, what in substance did he say michael cohen? >> what he said was that he could keep an eye out for anything negative amount mr. trump, and that he wouldn't be able to help us know in advance what was coming out and try to stop it from coming out prosecutor hoffinger. and who did he say? he would get in touch with if his if he was able to identify those types of stories, cohen the answer was me, mr. trump, also, knowing my relationship with david pecker,

the tabloid king, the two of you should work together and anything negative that comes out, you let michael know and we'll handle it. that's michael cohen quoting donald trump. now a lot of this has been corroborated by david pecker's testimony, what does that tell you that the jury requested this because if i recall correctly, the prosecutor the other prosecutor, steinglass, said in his summary that that trump tower meeting was a really important meeting to view this entire case. thrilled. an important lins so what you can glean from that note is that at least one juror, you can't necessarily generalize other 11 couldn't care less possibly get at least one juror is interested in learning and rehearing the theory of the prosecution's case, which is that at that is the meeting where the criminal intent was formulated. >> the conspiracy was formulated. the other thing that happened at that meeting that i think is significant is

that is where according to now, not just michael cohen, because so much of trump's involvement depends on the words of michael cohen. this is where pecker is saying trump, deputy literally deputize michael cohen to be the guy that pecker should work with. in executing this criminal plan. so at least one juror heard what josh steinglass, the prosecutor, sedna's summation about this and wants to rehear it. i think that's about all you can glean from this but that's what i think it is. does donald trump does the defense elie, do they deny that this meeting took place? no, they don't. i mean, they on the cross-examination, they tried to undercut it. they tried to say michael cohen and david pecker's recollection of the meeting is not exactly the same, but how could it be? it never is my view is the testimony of pecker and cohen overlaps substantially enough that it's mutually reinforcing forcing. it's mutually corroborating and kc's right. what you said before, i'm trying to understand what the jury's thinking is the pseudoscience of all pseudo

sciences. >> however, we can still draw inferences and one inference that i think we can draw about the jury is they're approaching this in a perfectly logical chronological manner that da tried to tell the story and closing this meeting is chapter one. >> this meeting is page one. it makes perfect sense that the jury starting there, and it's a solid starting point for the process. so just to go with the jury is right now now inside the courtroom right now, the first excerpt is being red and that's not the excerpt i just read. >> it is a different one and it's it's about a phone call between david pecker and donald trump. and just to give you some color as to what's going on in the courtroom. the the court reporter is reading the questions while different court reporters sitting in the witness iid is going to read the answers to the question. so two different court reporters are reenacting this transcript, being re-read so as to make it easier for the jury to understand as to who's saying what and we should note that they are they are told when

they reread, when they reread it to not be going from the stanislavski or stella adler school of acting. they are supposed to read it rather expression leslie, not emphasizing words not trying to recreate the moment, just trying to deliver the words they're both women. they're both reading. and i'm told they both have classic new york accents, although i don't know if that means queens, bronx, staten island, manhattan adirondacks. i don't know. but let's assume it's a little brooklyn and then down trump is leaning over to speak to beauvais after they hit one of his attorneys after they read this first excerpt. so this first excerpt, i'm not going to read you the whole thing, but i do want to read you a part of it to get at what's going on here. this has to do with a phone call between david pecker, this tabloid king and donald trump. and i believe this is in 2016. josh steinglass, the prosecutor, is interviewing david pecker and

this is a testimony from april 25th and at one point, steinglass says so when the subject of karen mcdougal came up, donald trump described her as a nice girl. this is karen mcdougal is the 1998 playboy playmate of the year, who alleges she had a ten or 11 months long romantic and sexual relationship with donald trump donald trump described her as a nice girl. david pecker, yes. steinglass, based on your conversation with mr. trump, did you have an understanding as to whether he was aware of the specifics of karen mcdougal's description of the affair? pecker? yes, i did steinglass. what made you come to such an understanding? i think that michael cohen gave him the i think michael collins spoke to donald trump which he said he was going to, which excuse me, which donald trump said on the phone that i spoke to michael and i believe that when mr. trump said that to me over the phone, that she was a nice girl. i believe that he knew who she was steinglass why would you recommend to donald trump purchasing this story? i

believe to the story was true. i think that it would've been very embarrassing to himself and also to his campaign. then that's not the entire excerpt, but that is some of the excerpt that was read and elliot williams, i'm wondering donald trump is not charged with anything having to do with count karen mcdougal, right? why is this being rewrite absolutely. >> it's a few things. so number one, it's this is further evidence of this catch-and-kill process whatever you wanna call it catch and kill. done just to, just to re-explain, catch and kill, is this idea of someone in this case, david pecker and the tabloid enterprise buying a story from somebody like karen mcdougal, not to run it, but to kill it is that illegal not not on its face, not unless you're doing it to commit or conceal another crime. okay. is it illegal to do that for a candidate for office to help

their campaign without declaring that as a contribution to their campaign. that is why that is, that is a legal that's why that question came in okay. i did it it helped to benefit the campaign. now, again, he is not charged with that conduct what prosecutors are doing is saying that on prior occasions, the same conduct are really substantially similar conduct to what we have charged here played out now, perhaps defense could have objected by saying that you're bringing in these ancillary matters that aren't charged here. they did not. i believe and correct me lawyers. that's did they object? >> i don't think so. >> yeah. i don't think so. >> the prosecutors wanted to prevent mcdougal from taking the stand, excuse trump's team wanted to keep mcdougal up the stand. prosecutors argued, we really do want to call her. judge said you can call her and then the prosecutor is during charles said, actually we're not going nicole, her. so yes, trump's team tried to keep mcdougal out of this trial on success. >> so and so and then number one, so in establishes a catch-and-kill also campaign ties that play and come up again very explicitly in the context of the stormy daniels

story, which is actually charged with and karen mcdougal, we should note she was paid $150,000 and it was for a column. she was going to write for one of these magazines. i think it was like fitness magazine or something like that that ami owned. she never actually wrote any columns, but she was paid $150,000. david pecker, according to his testimony, eight the cost of that, he thought he was going to be repaid by donald trump. he it was not repaid. do we think since he had an immunity deal, right. david pecker to testify that they could have the prosecutors could have charged him with an illegal campaign contribution because he's saying he did this is it would've been embarrassing to himself and also to his campaign. he's saying explicitly, he did this to help donald trump and donald trump's campaign do we think that that was part of the deal were not this is a big election fundraising crime. what we're not going to charge you in exchange for testimony. >> so that's the argument, right? david pecker clearly prosecutors is had some criminal exposure because they

gave them this non-prosecution deal. if you just have a witness who did nothing wrong, a person standing on a corner who witnesses are carjacking. that person does not need a non-prosecution agreement. the only time a person needs a non-prosecution agreement is if they're at least in the margins rob a criminal charge. now that's a deal prosecutors make all the time. i made many of those deals and the calculation that they made was his his involvement was small enough that crime was insignificant enough and his testimony is valuable enough that we'll make this deal. and prosecutors were very explicit and open about that deal with the jury. >> karen, what's your take on this testimony from david pecker that they're having re-read. >> yeah. i think exactly what what's being said here is they're trying to i think really parse out and see how much corroboration there is of michael cohen because this is what everybody and especially the prosecutor has said is there is corroboration of michael cohen. yes, he's a flawed witness, but you don't have to rely on him enough. and so i think they are going back

and really seeing what is corroborated. what does depend on michael cohen this, this whole thing of waiting for a jury verdict and reading, trying to read the tea leaves from notes is what all the lawyers in the courtroom are doing too, by the way, the prosecutors are talking to their supervisors, are talking to alvin bragg. they're all trying to figure that out. same and with the defense attorneys it's a torturers process and it's sometimes it can be very misleading what the notes say. as opposed to it's not always a reflection of what's going on in the room it's really can be misleading. and so you really have to take it with a grain of salt in terms trump's of gleaning what is happening and where they're leaning, right? >> it could, it could be the theoretically, even though they are asking for parts of the prosecution's case and we should note also, they did ask for an extra an excerpt of the cross-examination of david pecker by trump's team as well. and i'll read that in a second,

but it could be 11 people think this case is nonsense and one person thinks, no. well, there's one part of it that i think is trusting and they just ask oraa, it doesn't exactly. so you really don't know and so i think anyone who says, oh, this is great for the prosecution or this is terrible for the defense, whatever i think really needs to that person does not know what's going on in there yet. so they've, they've moved on to this. the second request, but before we get to that, i just wanted to note that they also read some of the cross-examination of david pecker about that excerpt about karen mcdougal's story in which david pecker acknowledges that he told then private citizen donald trump in 2016. it's my understanding that karen mcdougal does not want her story published for that part and they read that as well. now they're on the second part. of the request from the jury for an excerpt. this again has to do with david

pecker and it is from testimony from april 25 and it is, again, the prosecutor, joshua steinglass talking to david pecker the tabloid magnate, steinglass, though even though this agreement was signed, was it ever actually executed, this is about still about karen mcdougal. no, it wasn't pecker said question. now again, i'm going to ask you to be very careful here without revealing any privileged conversations with your legal counsel, should general counsel, did you come to the decision? did you have a conversation with your general counsel pecker? i did. question and based on that conversation, did you coag gri me this out a word? what is maybe this is a events like ours, you do come to the decision that you no longer wanted to be reimbursed for the money that ami had laid out to wire, ms mcdougal's lifetime rights? yes, that's correct. pecker said, sorry, there's a typo in my transcript here question, did you communicate that decision to michael cohen? yes then a

few lines later, pecker goes on to say, i called michael cohen and i said to him that the agreement the assignment deal is off. this is again, this is currently deal with karen mcdougal, the assignment deal is off quote. i'm not going to forward. >> it is a bad idea and i want you to rip up the agreement. >> know michael cohen pecker says was very, very angry, very upset, screaming basically at me and i said, i'm not going to forward. i'm not going forward with this agreement, rip it up and he said, excuse me, michael cohen said the boss, meaning donald trump, is going to be very angry at you. i said, i'm sorry, i'm not going forward. the deal's off and he said i can't believe it. i am a lawyer. i am your friend. i don't understand why you are so concerned. i said i'm very concerned and i'm not going forward period. and i said, are you going to rip it up or nadh and he said, i will take care of it. the prosecutor says to be clear, mr. pecker, did ami ever get reimbursed for the money? and the answer was no okay. >> i always what why is this important? >> this is the beginning of the falling out, the divorce, the

parting of ways between ami david pecker, national enquirer on the one hand, trump trump organization, michael cohen on the other the deal heading into the karen mcdougal pay off was basically ami national enquirer was going to pay her $150,000 in order to catch and kill her story. and then they would assign the rights that they had to control the story. they would essentially sell it over to trump and cohen. what pecker is saying here is we ended up not getting reimbursed from them, not selling the rights back over to cohen and trump because i talked to my lawyer now he wasn't allowed to say what the lawyer told him, but it's quite clear the lawyer said to pecker, hang on. this is getting into the shady area. you don't want to continue with this deal and that's why pecker ended up buying the story on his own. and by real quick, when it jumps ahead, a couple of months to stormy daniel's, david pecker sure. it says i'm out. i'm not being part of this. >> i am not a bank. >> i'm not a bank right? and we are in this legal gray area and that's why cohen ends up paying stormy daniel's very, very interesting. >> let me throw it back to kaitlan collins in new york

thanks, jake. >> and of course is we are watching this. the court reporters have now started reading david pecker's direct examination by the prosecutor hear that his joshua steinglass, who was the one who also made the closing argument and emphasized david pecker's testimony, calling it and utterly devastating to donald trump, saying it all tied back to what they say is the overarching theme of their allegations here, which is that this was all done to influence the 2016 election. it's notable that that's the part that the jury he has asked to rehear as they are having the court reporters literally read it back to them in the courtroom. >> trump. but according to reporters in the room, is looking toward the court. reporters as they are reading back this testimony one, of you seated to the left, the court reporter sits in the witness box and the witness stand where that is. and paula reid now they're moving on to the david pecker's testimony about the trump tower meeting this is incredibly important because it was that august 2015 meeting where david pecker says he was invited. it was donald trump and michael cohen's idea to have this tabloid the king come into trump tower, the 25th

floor, 26 floor, and have this meeting where trump and michael cohen asked him, what can you do for the campaign, and he was the one who responded that he could help with negative stories about women that came forward, which ultimately did happen. >> yeah, this is really critical to the entire case because when frosted shooters laid out their theory of the case, they said that they believe that this conspiracy that they've charged trump with began during this meeting and this was a conspiracy to help hope trump win the white house in 2016 by suppressing negative stories and amplifying ones that can help him. it's interesting that they've not only asked for david pecker's testimony about they also asked for michael cohen's testimony about this because one of the questions they're going to have to ask is what was trump's role in this meeting? what was his role in what prosecutors allege was the hello. step in this conspiracy. so when you come to the overarching write narrative of this case, this is a critical moment and it's probably important for them to read here this testing money because david pecker, you

haven't heard from him in weeks. there's the first witness they heard from, so they're going to hear this back. they're also going to hear michael cohen's version of events. and this will be a very important piece of as they continue their deliberations. >> and this is the meeting where david pecker testified that hope hicks was in and out of that meeting she testified that she didn't recall any conversations of this in and out briefly a meal beauvais, trump's attorney tried to turn it on david pecker are saying that he misremembered when exactly the meeting was, i believe when he miss remembered the exact date trump was at a debate, a republican primary debate actually, during that time period. but, but after that in which the prosecution had the chance to question david again, they said, oh, could we just miss remember the exact date, but you do know that you were in trump tower on this day this meeting did happen. it was widely reported about what trump is actually president long before it would pecker actually testified about it. >> yeah. >> part of what the defense is doing there was trying to question has memory. they kept saying it wasn't just about the time that they were saying, has your brain fills then some of the gaps because it was ten

years ago, because they were looking back at a deposition that he had given or testimony you give it to a grand jury and saying you said a little bit different stuff during this time period, then you're saying now and basically chopping it up to the fact that it was years ago. so you're not going to remember every single thing that was said in chronological order. and pecker said likely, but this is how i recollected to the best of my ability. now, again, a lot of this is also going to go to election interference because part of that that conversation was how can you help us with the campaign and pecker saying, well, i can be your eyes and ears on the ground. i'm not going to work for the campaign, but i can let you know there's anything out there and potentially handle it for you. now the question of course, the jury is going to have to answer, is this part of a conspiracy to impact the election? or was it just someone helping them out? >> and david pecker himself for people who aren't super familiar with aeb or don't remember him because he was the first witness in this. and when he is someone who who has no ax

to grind against donald trump, he was friends with trump for, for decades there was actually this interesting moment where he, in recent weeks, he and michael cohen ran into each other and new york after booth then pick finished her testimony as they're both still these kind of central players in new york and he's someone, he, he spoke glowingly of donald trump. he wanted to see donald trump the elected president. >> these a good witness, sees a credible witness, as you said, he doesn't have an ax to grind. he's not making a living off attacking trump. he doesn't have any personal grievance. we are talking about events. there we're nine years ago, nearly, but he was a good first witness for the prosecution because you have no reason not to believe him. he does not like michael cohen have a lot of the issues and the convictions around line, the vendetta against trump he's a really good witness. it's for the prosecution as they tried to argue that this was again, this was all done intentionally as part of a conspiracy to help trump win the white house. and not just someone trying to protect their family and then someone who had

no idea how michael cohen was paid back because he was such a good witness. i think that's why it's important to note that they are asking for both his testimony the end michael cohen's because we know that michael cohen was obviously not as strong of a witness. so if you're going to cooperate, any of michael cohen's testimony, you'd want to do it with someone who was a good witness. >> and just a reminder of of how trump was smiling during david pecker's testimony, he told you that he was a nice person, i believe. would you great job? he was a nice person to ask trump, what here's probably why? because the question it was about how they were worried about women in particular, not just negative stories on anything, but women in particular and david pecker said, in a presidential campaign, i was one who thought that there would be a lot of women who came forward their stories. he described trump is the well-known, is the most eligible bachelor who dated beautiful women. and he said it was clear that based on my past experience, because we know the national enquirer did this for other elected officials or candidates that when someone is running for public office, that it is very common for women to call the magazine like the national enquirer, david pecker

testified to try to sell their stories the question was, did you have or express any ideas about how you may be able to help kind of deal with those stories. he said, all i said is i would notify michael cohen and they go on to talk about how we use also going to amplify story, negative stories about the clintons. >> and this is what prosecutors hope elevate this case beyond a paperwork. >> case. >> two, election interference, they hate it when we refer to good as the hush money case, they say no, this is about something much more significant. >> this is about keeping critical information from voters ahead of the 2016 contests. now, do you think intelligent mind? i can disagree about whether people already knew trump was in adult or a serial adulterer, and whether this really was material information that voters didn't have that's how prosecutors have tried to frame it. they believe that all of this everything that david pecker talked about, the role of the national enquirer is what makes this case worth bringing that this was it's about interfering with the democratic process and what's important to note here is as

the jury is hearing this for a second time, i mean, they first heard it six weeks ago, but when he who is cross-examined, the prosecution or the defense tried to really drive home that david pecker also benefited from this. they did. it did help tell magazines at the national enquirer when it was negative stories, i'll bill clinton or hillary clinton. and when it came to trump's republican rivals and they really tried to drive home this idea for the jury that this wasn't just for trump, that the national enquirer also benefited. >> yeah. and that was one of the questions that they asked you are all ready? he running negative stories about bill and hillary clinton. is that correct? david pecker said yes, they said that was something that people picked up off the shelves if it was negative about the clinton. so that was one of the things that pecker said. but then they went on because when we go to get to the part about the primary and the republicans that he was planting stories on that was not something that he was doing ahead of time. we talked about that ted cruz story in which the national enquirer said, linked ted cruz's father to the assassination of jfk, mashed up a photo right?

>> of two people to make it look like rafael cruz, his father. i talked to ted cruz about this last bit ted cruz was surging in popularity in the republican primary this time and i was asking him, do you think that your campaign would have done better? do you think donald trump is still would have been the nominee without these tactics? >> and he kinda described it as so rough and tumble campaign, but we saw how the national enquirer was really doing. >> its best to help you have been rough and tumble is one thing, but planning stories about your fathering part of the the assassination of big k has a little bit more aggressive than a rough and tumble. i mean, they were using a national outlet to essentially your attack, someone's family and it wasn't just just father. he they had different points gone after textures, his family and his wife and then go on tv, an amplify them. you know, when when todd blanche tried to downplay though publication and. how many people are the subscription power of the national enquirer trump. i remember when on fox and friends and said, well, have you heard the story? he hasn't denied this story. i have no

idea of the story came from in trump denied being part of it, and he was going and using it to his advantage. >> keep in mind this was also an election in which which twitter was completely skyrocket i mean, everybody was following news on twitter was likely one of the biggest elections that twitter has been a part of and we know lot of those people we're trying to influence the election now. so despite the fact that national enquirer only had what, 350,000 readership. and why would that matter anyway, i neither here nor there, given what we know about that time period, we know about now with social media and how all of that was being amplified. and as you said, by the former president and the disinformation effort by russia, the justice department's subsequently charge people involved in trying to amplify there were an army of bots negative stories about hillary clinton, positive ones about trump to influence the election get, the power of the national enquirer. this moment in time was enormous and it's not just to bolster someone's reputation is to win the white house and prosecutors are really hope that that elevates this case and the mind

or the jury, but also in the mind of the public has obviously they've taken a lot of heat for bringing it with a succumbing to a political pressure. is this really worthy of the time? resources potentially convicting a former president. and every time i talk to them about that, they always say, this isn't about how she money, this isn't just about paperwork. this is about election interference. and subverting democracy yeah, they are now on the third section of this with the jury thought was important to have read back to them by a court reporter who is there in the there's one more part of the testimony that they have asked to hear about that is from michael cohen, is well. >> so we are standing by as we are waiting, as this jury is continuing its deliberations now while they were inside the jury box listening to this court reporter read this bag. this is seen as a special live coverage. we're continuing to cover all the developments from inside the courtroom here by me with jake tapper today it for on cnn type two diabetes discover the ozempic tries zone

i got the power of three. i lowered my a1c cdi risk and lost some weight in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under seven and maintained it. >> i'm under seven ozempic lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm loring my wrist. >> adults lost up to 14 pounds or lost weight. i was epic, isn't for people with type one diabetes, don't share needles or pens or reuse needles, so don't take ozempic if you you and your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type-2 or the allergic to stop ozempic and get medical help right away. if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or allergic reaction, serious side effects may include pancreatitis, gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems are changes taking ozempic with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems living with type two diabetes at us about the power of three with ozempic recipes.

>> recipes written by hand, lost to time are now being analyzed and restored using the power of delhi whether you're a professional driver or just a fan vehicle breakdowns are costly. >> it started tukey started making some really weird noises. >> the last thing i remember is just the engine cut out. >> if you're check engine light comes on tomorrow, the repair could easily cause thousands is that transmission? >> it's an exhaustive leap, broken axles, but with endurance, you could never pay out of pocket for a costly repair. >> again, they covered a $14,000 and you replacement. >> i had a seat sensor that went out 1,400 endurance paid it. >> you've got a brand new transmission and we never seen the repair bill use any certified mechanic you want, just bring your car in an endurance will pay them direct. all major parts are covered. >> what i like about endurance, they don't play games. there's no middleman, there

are solid company. >> if i didn't have endurance, would've paid over $7,000 out of pocket to repair a vehicle. >> something is going to break down, make endurance pay for it with endurance, your car repair costs go way down. >> while you're corps life expectancy goes way up, allowing you to drive more and pay less. >> one claim alone save me more than $4,000. i've had five claims and that is $3,500 that i've kept in my pocket. so who's going to pay for your next car repair? >> you, or endurance? >> whether you put 10,000 or 100,000 miles a year on your car. if it's less than 20 20-years-old, endurance as you've covered with unlimited miles plus, your plan covers 24/7 roadside assistance anywhere in the country? >> all right now to get $300 off any plan plus a full year of our top tier elite benefits, a $2,000 value free and all endurance plans come with a

30-day money-back guarantee. >> but you have to act now, call 1, 8, 5, 5, 2, 3, 7, 0, 4, 8, 9. that's a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today!

house solomon in new york and this is cnn good morning. welcome to cnn special coverage of the trump hush money trial. i'm jake tapper in washington with my colleague kaitlin collins in new york right outside the courthouse. right this minute, the jury in donald trump's criminal hush money trial is back to work there currently having testimony from former national enquirer chief david pecker, and former or witness michael cohen, read back to them and those 12 men hot nights will ultimately decide whether the former president of the united states is guilty of felony crimes. this would be the first time in the history of the united states of america that, that happened, mr.