beginning, you have been down at the courthouse. how would you describe what you're saying outside of the court house as well as a number of people there? have to imagine that number could build as we get closer to potential verdict here. >> it is absolutely building, as you can imagine the amount of media is continuing to balloon here. as really struck the other day when i was walking through the courthouse and went to the clerk's office or was a chart on the wall that was telling people where other trials were taking place and i realize, there are other criminal proceedings taking place ways that former president, it is so incredible. >> sandra: thank you. >> john: thank you. well, we say and we wait. i doubt anything will come today but i think we have to be on a hot standby for the next few days because he could come at any moment. thank you for joining us, set your dvr and never miss us. >> sandra: thank you for joining us, "the story" joints as now, lie from the courthouse.

>> thank you john and sandra, good afternoon, and for martha maccallum, this is "the story". we are live out of the trump trial in downtown manhattan where the jury is still awaiting right now behind closed doors, the former president charged with falsifying business records to cover up a payment to born stars stormy daniels before the 2016 election he's facing up to five years in prison on each count and he says you did nothing illegal. >> mr. trump: mother teresa could not meet those charges, this whole thing is rigged. where the judges so conflicted he cannot breathe, he has to do his job. it's a disgrace and i mean that. mother teresa cannot be those charges but we will see. >> the five cohosted judges with me here at the courthouse, what has struck you, in the final

argument, the jury instructions now we wait. >> judge jeanine: so much that strikes me, on the one hand up and saying continuously that michael cohen it is the linchpin of this case, the judge gave an instruction as you believed 70 lie to you about material fog in the near of course are free to disregard that a person's entire testimony. able to go to that issue regarding michael cohen, most of the considerations of this case is done. however,, one of the judge did as he money dabble the waters, what was a relatively simple case has not been turned into a very complicated case by the judge saying look, you got these misdemeanors but if you believe any of these three things happened, i campaign violation, the tax violation or luzardo when is the falsification of records, we don't believe there were any falsifications, we don't really care whether or not you agree on if these things happen, then the defendant's felony.

and that to me was the most shocking part of this. the judge was clearly in a situation where he said to the classification of income as a reimbursement when it is not is it cannot be considered a tax violation, even though you have not underpaid, even though you paid as much as you are supposed to. it was almost as though he was making this up as he went along in the answer the question which they refuse to answer at the beginning of the indictment, which is what is the crime that resurrects these two dead misdemeanors and the judge that he don't worry about it, it could -- if you go to column eight, b. or c we don't have to agree on it but we will get him folks. >> we did not hear, there were illusions here and there during the arguments, but we were all waiting and i'm thinking of all the lawyers sitting and waiting and watching to figure out what this underlying thing is, how confusing do you think it is where the dirty commodity have two attorneys on the jury, how confused he think they are or d. think they see clearly.

>> judge jeanine: one of the things that is here in the courtroom is that the juror who had three notebooks, the notes was as a lawyer, the corporate lawyer. some saying to myself the corporate lawyer is going to start standing up and talking about all of the notes, if he goes to all of his notes in an effort to do what the jury could ask for, then we are in for a long haul here. at the same time you kind of stayed to the jury in cases like this, nothing like this or because this is not real, but sometimes difficult decisions are relatively simple. and based upon who the linchpin is here, this is a simple case. they were no records, nobody put donald trump in touch with anybody, the invoice or the check. and we know that donald trump is concerned. so they would have to prove that he did it afford to the

campaign, the exclusion of any other option and they did not argue that. >> i do think that it was a jury instruction good for the defense, i campaign expenditure, if it is something that could have been expended outside over the campaign, which trump supporters will argue right, he did not want his wife or family to find out and be embarrassed, that was only the jury could then take and say it was not i campaign expenditure, this is not connected to any election law. there's still other doors and other places he can go but that was a win for the defense in that sense. >> judge jeanine: is think about the fact that you have michael cohen talking about of the federal election campaign violation, you got david packard, talking about a federal election agreement, and then the defendant in this case is not allowing the opportunity to bring in brad schmidt i think his name is, to talk about what really is a federal election campaign violation. and yet of the jury is going to be ruling on the and voting on

that one to the defense is denying the opportunity to present evidence. there was so much reversible error in this, could reverse a crews ship. >> shannon: what here's the thing, over there is a conviction we have no idea where those juries going, if there is a conviction of course there will be an appeal and that's why you thought the trump legal team will do what you will have months of not years of him being referred to as a convicted felon all through election season something i imagine the biden campaign is bidding -- looking forward to using if that happens, political along with the legal. >> judge jeanine: and ultimately it is about politics. robert de niro was here yesterday supposedly, to roll people up against donald trump, all he did was ride up an audience and told them to of off and called them gangsters. that was the biden plan here. and you told them that were going to refer to him as a convicted felon and we look forward on the day the verdict comes out. >> shannon: you're getting word, those reports from inside the courtroom there may be some

kind of activity. whether this is the jury, there are some questions, weeding part of the jury instructions, a portion of testimony right back. we have no idea but there is some kind of activity so we're trying to determine at this point what that may be. but we have seen this when juries go out, there is 55 pages of jury instructions in this case, you didn't -- you do not give them in writing but he said if you have questions, come back. here's president trump, this is life, he's staying around here as he has to do and the jury deliberations are underway. his legal team will go back into the courtroom over there is a question from of the jury or of the judge has to get involved or if there is a verdict. i think we would be shocked to get summing this early. it would not be shocking to get something from the jury. >> judge jeanine: jurors come back with notes all the time, but that could be, you know what, we want to work past 4:30 pm. what is the judge get off saying 4:30 can all go home but when you're phones for the next three

hours. none of it makes sense. or it could be the wants lead back of something, or maybe they will ask the judge to do -- do one for each kind of question, or maybe we just want soda. >> shannon: at me and really at the beginning, what do we look for from a jury this early one of those questions, whatever they are asking, and we find out if they're asking that would be super helpful for us to guess where they are stuck. >> judge jeanine: and they have to put it on the record, we will know what it is. generally they going to ask about the reader back or look at evidence but i understand the laptops, they have the exhibits that have been marked into evidence into the jury room in the deliberation room. i imagine it might be a read back based upon you know, think about how many -- >> shannon: think about how many weeks, the weeks of david packard, all of these early folks we have heard from, it seems a ancient history.

is a china piece the puzzle together as they have their deliberations, they may say, we need something from week two which was a while ago. >> judge jeanine: there's truth to the saying of justice delayed is justice denied in the truth is, this has been drawn on for so long, there is no justification for a week offered as jury from tuesday to tuesday. there is no justification for them not to be -- this is a former president of the united states of america, and the possible future president, probable. and in any case there should be frustration, it's this case. i would have said to the jury bring your toothbrushes, tell the clerk, and you get one call each, not two. [ laughter ] >> shannon: badawey, we know with the judges do different things and have different reasons, why do you think this judge decided not to, just to let them go about their business and lives in such a critical trial? >> judge jeanine: let me ask you this, we know already that

jury pool is from a group of people in manhattan who were 85-90 percent anti- trump. >> shannon: based on voting the last time around, we don't know now. >> judge jeanine: we don't how these focus voted, but that is where jurors come from, they come from the voting boot -- voting poll. and so you know, i think that is a danger. i think in a case like this especially should have had them suppressed in. there's so much chance, that assumption on the line. this is a top job in the united states of america, you are allowing the jury to go out and possibly be influenced or even need -- read a newspaper? i would say, you can't do any of that. >> shannon: judge do not go far, we will check in with our correspondent live out of the courthouse deceived is anything more going on, hello. >> it hello, the prosecution and defense have entered the courtroom as we await to hear from our producers inside of the

courtroom, if the jury has a question as they are deliberating right now, they notably, the jury was not able to take a copy of the jury instructions into their deliberations, and if you go over the jury instructions, it's a 55 page document and we had people who are lawyers on air all day saying how intricate it is, so it is difficult to imagine how 12 normal people although there are some lawyers as part of this jury would be able to accurately understand and recall every intricate detail over the jury instructions. of course one big part of it is that we are all sort of waiting to see how the jury will interpret our is a three options that they have where trump is accused of unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and the unlawful part is the part where the judge gave the jury three separate options to

essentially convict him of this crime. you see right now what could happen if trump is in fact found guilty. it is 34 counts of that, quite a long time in prison, but with the new york law the maximum here is 20 years. trouble course of convicted would be able to appeal, may stay are suspend the execution of that sentence. judge juan merchan said as you deliberately cannot consider the sentence and they can only consider the facts and the evidence at trial today injured in the courthouse, donald trump said this is election interference and you blamed president joe biden for bringing this case and other cases against him. if he is convicted of the prosecution could request a dollar from get locked up until his sentencing hearing, but that is considered unlikely, considering that this is a nonviolent defense and that donald trump does not have a

criminal history by trump's lawyers could request lifting the gaggle order after the sisett and undone so it publicly responded to the charges that have been laid out in this trial -- gag. we're waiting minute by minute on an update for this note, but right now we don't have any answers quite yet. >> shannon: very much appreciate that, we will keep checking in. as a judge said we will find out if there is a notice that comes from the jury or juror, we will hear what they have to save asking questions or telling the judge that came to some kind of decision. we will see. let's take a little bit of time and make sure minute by minute as it happens he will know at home. i also want to bring in sunday night in america host trays gallagher and oversight committee chairman, he has done it all. and andy mccarthy former u.s. state attorney in our fox news computer. all right, we have been in this

for weeks now. we have something from the jury, we don't know what it is. one of play something on illegal -- from a legal expert from another network. we have a note from the jury but we don't know what it is yet -- okay. i want to play this from a criminal defense attorney, david oscar mark is saying how the jury must feel now that they've heard the case. >> the jury must be overwhelmed. to have all of these instructions read to them without them getting a copy is going to be overwhelming for them. it is also crazy that that lawyers were not able to discuss the instructions into their closings yesterday. typically lawyers can go through the instructions and explain why they've met them or why the government has not met them and they were not able to do that yesterday which i find bizarre. >> shannon: okay,, they got the 55 pages of instructions but did not get to them in writing. so the note we have from maria,

our producer who has been a expert at everything going on into their, she said the note came in at 2:56 pm, a request from the jury, when hear about of the packer testimony regarding the phone conversation with donald trump, the decision not to fine -- find the mcdougall life writes a story, the testimony onto the trump tower meeting and the michael cohen testimony on the trump tower meeting. if i made this is a meeting that other people were involved when -- whispered they were not called. what you make of what they are requesting as of rookiemac. >> having been on the receiving end of those notes, it is absolutely impossible to make anything of it. what you don't know is if all 12 want to rehear the testimony or of 11 have already made up their minds and one wants to hear the testimony. you don't know why they want to rehear the testimony. i would imagine, about was a

prosecutor i would think if i had to pick something for them to hear, that may be something good. but i would be lying to you if i said any lawyer, maybe the one sitting to the right of me, but if i were prosecutor or defense attorney, i have no idea what is on the jury's mind based on a note, whether it is 11 or one. >> shannon: let me walk through this again, the note comes in, when hear david packard's testimony regarding the phone conversation, number he was running to the national enquirer ami, there were conversations about catcher to kill, he testified to this happen for a lot of celebrities and politicians, it wasn't something just for president trump. he has a set of this happened with president trauma 1988, this is the way the business works, this is what they do. that is who he is. they want the decision not to find the care mcdougall's life writes story, she entered a long-term relationship with president trump, the neighborhood of ten months.

she's been giving out introducing she was in love, this was not a casual or physical affair, it is more than that. as a heard from her in the past saying she did not really want to sell the life writes to her story in the sense she did not want to tell the story, she was not threatening where she saw the sunset in the past, she did not take a stand here but she said this agreement with the national enquirer is a way to restart her career, trade because, to be on magazine covers. you want to know about that and they also in here the pecker testimony onto the trump tower meeting in the michael cohen testimony on the trump tower, what is i mean to you? >> i agree jerzy are always a wild card, it could be one juror. since this is the first no, want to go back to something you said earlier which is it is a long trial, pecker was a first witness. if they are their way through the evidence, they might want to be refreshed, especially since i heard a lot of arguments in the last day about what pecker's

testimony was in the meaning of it. they may want to go back themselves over what that testimony was. not what i would not like about this if i were the defense lawyer, and again taking all caution about not reading too much into this, if i'm a defense lawyer, one of them to focus on the records because the charges in the indictment are falsification of the business records. if they are looking for pecker story, that's the prosecutor's version of events. the prosecutors portray this case to the jury as a conspiracy that went back to 2015 to influence the election and pecker was a key player that. so it could be they are refreshing they recollection of the testimony, you can also be that there is somebody into the prosecution's theory of the case, we would just have to see. >> i will say, putting the devil's advocate because everybody needs a lawyer, if angie and i were debating this

over a glass of suite tea back in south carolina -- >> shannon: do you know what sweet tea is chemic. [ laughter ] he is a new yorker. >> so i'm the defense, i may be emboldened to cause, he did this all time, pecker killed stories all the time to save marriages and business rotations. maybe the members of the jury sitting there thinking maybe this was not about an election, it was about something else, it was about preserving his relationship with his wife, or his business reputations. there is literally no way of knowing who wants his testimony replayed and for what reason. >> shannon: okay i want to note couple of things with the closing arguments from both sides because we know the jury wants to hear do something about michael cohen's testimony about the trump tower meeting as well. let me put it this year, todd blanche, attorney for donald trump, we got him talking about mr. cohen and what you means to

this prosecution, maybe just put it up on the screen it, there you go. sorry. he is a human embodiment of reasonable doubt, literally he relied to you repeatedly, he lied many times before he even met him,'s financial and personal well-being depends on this case. on the other side, we also have this from prosecutors talking about michael cohen and how much does or does not depend on him, because he as a member during the closing, they really try to say we have mountains of evidence besides him but, here's part of the closing from the prosecution, this case is not about michael cohen, he is a tour guide from the physical evidence by those documents don't lie and they don't forget. >> michael cohen is a terrible witness, do you think you call him if you don't have to give back if he's not as engine to the case, he's the guy and want anywhere near the standard taking the case. i think any time in this michael cohen is probably good for former president trump. the one thing i would say about

the pecker aspect of this on the discourse over the -- underscores the unfairness out of the trumpet initiation tries to highlight for us, and that is the ask about the mcdougall nda and how that broke down. remember, trump and cohen or at least cohen said with trombley were gonna pay that and then banmac at the last seconds that you know, we are not going to take reimbursement from that. and when you testified, he talk to their general counsel and you suggested that there may be something criminal about that and therefore they decided not to pay. so trump is arguing that on the one hand, he wanted to make advice of counsel defense and the judge said no, or mark and let that happen, and yet on this very important aspect of the so-called scheme, conspiracy to influence the election, of the injected were delayed for as the opinion of a lawyer that what they were up to his criminal which seems to be unfair. >> shannon: again, the jury

has asked, when you hears some of the testimony from david packer and her michael cohen regarding a payout or possible buyout of care mcdougall's story of her alleged affair with president trump and also they want to hear about the trump tower meeting, our colleague jonathan turley says this about that note, he said notably joshua steinglass, the -- joshua steinglass prosecuted said that he met him and donald trump's tower in 20 date and they discuss can mcdougall, one of the most notable elements was at steinglass said that pecker testified that trump thanked him for his help on the mcdougall story. she's not part of this case. it is not relevant information -- it is relevant but there is no with any payout to her. >> if there's any baffling evidence rulings it is propensity, evidence was usually excluded so this case had both propensity -- propensity evidence, the fact that he may have engaged in wrongdoing in the past should not be evidence

of the current wrongdoing. it is also proximity evidence, because you're a -- around somebody, on the husk you shouldn't agreement, you must also be guilty, with proximity and this judge let them do both. >> if brand were here, i think what he would say it's absolutely in the indictment and what he would say is that a to be charged him with his falsification of business records with intent to defraud and under the statute is the intent has included the commission or concealment of another crime. he says the other crime is that this conspiracy to influence the election. now, any sensible person looking at the fall for corners of the indictment were not see the words conspiracy in there but that is what he would say. he was ada's in the day and unfortunately, judge juan merchan agrees it is and there even though nobody can see it. >> shannon: technically there is no charge for conspiracy,

that's been at what went through their argument. we will check in with nate voight, monitoring what is going on end of the white house -- courthouse direct needs? the. >> hello, the jury has three questions about david pecker's testimony. one on michael cohen's testimony from that trump tower meeting where prosecutors allege this conspiracy began where pecker, the former ceo of america media promised to be the eyes and ears of the trump campaign and to put up positive stories about former president donald trump and to suppress negative stories about him. and also to publish negative stories about his opponents encoding former secretary of state hillary clinton at the time. this is key because this is one of the few moments where trump is accused of directly being involved and of note shannon, as part of the jury instructions despite the fact that it was allowed to be brought up by the prosecution several times during their closing arguments and throughout the trial, judge juan

merchan did say that michael cohen's 2018 guilty plea of the fee code violation and david pecker's nonpersecution violation agreement were only brought up to provide context for the jury bar they cannot actually imply trump's level of guilt. this trump tower meeting of course is the one conversation that these people were in the same room, prosecutors allege birthing this conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. we're waiting for more details to come up with that is the latest we have right now. >> shannon: okay. thank you very much. a panelist standing by here, andy mccarthy's is with us as well be back we got another note from inside, saying that 12 egg briefly stepped out of, how to blanch, the former president attorney is flipping through some papers. they are waiting for the jury to be brought into this testimony to be read back to them. as that is happening, what would you be watching for as a member

of the prosecution or the defense on those jurors spaces can! soon where the eyes of looking and where the heads or nodding. what used to seize the jurors who do not have questions would look down at the ones who did and kind of stacy, we told you, that's what was said. or i would be paying attention who is sitting with whom, are the same jurors sitting with the same folks that have been sitting with for the last several weeks, but it is uncanny. you may have had a different experience, but you can sometimes tell who has the questions based on where the eyeballs go when the testimonies being played back. >> i have similar experience with trade, the other thing i would note, if you want to know what it's like to be a lawyer in the room right now, when a jury has a note like this asking for testimony, you are frantic because you're going through the transcript and trying to make sure you accounted for everything that might be helpful to your side that is relevant and answers a question.

so yes, you very anxious to see the jury and want to serve them quickly. if the jury has a question you want to answer to fast. we also make sure you don't miss anything that should be read back. >> this judge did something strange, he essentially invited them to ask questions. he didn't send the jury instruction back. i do recall them saying that when sending the exhibits back, maybe have a different experience can! >> shannon: on the laptop they said the. >> and two people within the jury to access. good luck. i take more than 15 minutes to turn the two of us to do it. but you essentially invited in the jury, look, if you have a question right here when you ask the jury, most judges don't do that. they want you to work it out yourself. don't keep coming back in the courtroom asking to replaced of, you took a different approach. >> shannon: and he did, as we talked about before, both teams of attorneys keep saying i am the one who is to instruct this

court on the log, to instruct the jurors on the law, you don't do that. what about that andy, the fact that he's now saying you have to come back to me for all these questions. editing give me the right jury instructions but i am the only one who can tell you how to apply the law see you had to come to me for that interpretation. >> with all due respect, that is as boneheaded as anything i've heard of because trump has a right to make his defense. if his defense is that there is a lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt about an essential element of the offense, and he needs to walk them through what essential elements mean and will reasonable doubt means and how the legal instructions match up to the evidence in the case, and the judging diffuser that says read the law to me, i'm like, no! leave representing trump to me. you said there, we went along with all your rulings, you didn't get -- you get instruct the jury at the end but this is

my time now, let me expand to the jury why they should quit this guy. >> shannon: knowing the high of three possibilities, may be others to be underlying crime, do you think it is important is the jury why québec with a question say, okay,, if you want to find a violation over that mikamac where he enumerated of the elements, there was an explanation of what is that campaign expenditure but not the same way in the way that i've prepared to jury instructions in the past with the elements one, two, three how to get to those. >> one of the questions i keep asking, but he keep sending me a bill, does it have to be the reason for the expenditure or a reason for the expenditure. if i'm a member of the jury, i have no idea. politics is about pausing to a positive and suppressing negative stories. at oleh ruin it for political scientists out there but that's what politicians do. is that really like a federal election violation to try to suppress a story that would be damaging for your campaign?

if you need to build more prisons of that is a federal election law. >> shannon: people not telling the truth on campaigns and suppressing nasty stories can! okay,, don't go far. criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, andrew what did you make of this, we got to today before we heard one of the potential charge will be tuning into this holding into a series of phonies escaping the statues of limitations. >> out of think it is any surprise, we have seen of this training coming for a long time. the defense has been asking for clarity for what does ask leading offense looks like, and i we see the judge all along was going to let the prosecutors essentially have this three different pronged approach to that escalating the funds. it's offensive as a criminal defense attorney, and think the idea of representing a client of necessity to have adequate notice of exactly what you are defending your client against. think it is a major issue in

this case, when that it would be certain to go upon appeal of there's of connection, this is a thing with the also coming when the judge was so hesitant and reluctant to require the prosecution to provide that additional clarity. >> shannon: let's talk about that, if there is a conviction, we have no idea if that's where this case will lead but if so we will have an appeal. does this judgement stay on appeal. if there's a conviction, it's gonna take a while before he got through the appeals process. months, maybe years in new york. >> at least many months to get through the process. typically on a first-come offense especially if it's on a violent crime it takes three or four months to do the presentencing assessment period. there is the opportunity to appeal to stay the sentencing until after the appeal is complete. i don't see there being a sentencing ahead of the november

election the most likely circumstances here, although the court could punt on that, requires sentencing to be done and then the sentencing be done right ahead of the november election essentially. >> shannon: there has been talk of the lack of knowledge the underlying crime being something you mentioned there could be appealable or reversible error under our system, was there to know what their try to defend themselves against. other other things you have seen in the case whether jury instructions or rulings, other decisions that judges have made that you would think would be top of mind for the trumpet team if there is a conviction and the launch an appeal can! >> i think you go from the beginning all the way to the end. you have the judge on the case, the bias that he of course has had throughout this case an obvious to the defense is made a big deal of that. it outgo about stormy daniels in the way that stormy daniels is brought into the case but it's not just stormy daniels with regards to this kind of idea of

other crimes or acts. the idea of showing other bad conduct in order to prove his commonality here has been pervasive through this case. that is a real issue. obvious to the testimony of stormy daniels and some of the prosecution's deep dive into the sexuality allegations that occurred between her and donald trump after specifically having instructions from the judge not to go into that information, because we have legal based issues, are these in fact crimes are legitimate in the first place in consideration over the statute of limitations and the charging scheme the government brought here. so there is a lot of issues here, i know the trump team once nothing to do with this case moving forward, but if it does, it is certainly many issues that could be brought. >> shannon: what about the issue of the former commissioner brad smith in the fight to get his testimony included to give

the jury more of an expedition what a federal election issue would be because this court failed to make the reporting to state election law, this is not a court that could be the arbiter of federal law, solie not at the point of the defense wanted to call brad smith for. >> i think that is a huge error in this case, look at the prosecution, so many peripheral witnesses to the trial and essentially argued has some connection to the case. the defenses of a limited case, they try to bring into the expert and talk about federal election campaigns and the judge says no, he's not allowing somebody essentially to come into the courtroom to tell him the law. although he can have legal experts, i have seen many over the years in different types of trials. and then you seen the jury instructions today that of the judges giving this very broad stroke approach to how to consider federal election campaign violations. so broader in fact that i think

it is very difficult to say the judge's instructions is consistent with what the fec would see with this. you really have to look toward the charges require a, and that is specific intend to engage in cultural conduct and without allowing to the defense to call an expert in a federal campaign violation law, how can the jury fairly and accurately view all of the evidence in consideration of the right to present expert witnesses, it's a real issue here. >> shannon: okay. thank you very much, we appreciate your expertise on this puttmac they will not bring in criminal defense attorney, mike, always good to how your perspective on these things. when using the defense got this right, or anything they fall short, how would you be feeling if you are part of this defense team waiting on this jury can! >> i would feel like i felt every single time when the juries went to deliberate, it is how you make it is horrible. you put in years of your life and ultimately your entire fate,

you and your clients, lies in the hands of 12 people that you really don't know. they are strangers. you really have no idea what side of the applicable aisle they are on, you've no idea what can a baggage to bring to the courtroom, you have no idea. anybody who thinks they know what the verdict will be, they don't know. one of the things i loved about the defense was saying you need michael cohen, this case is about michael cohen, it's all with the persecution says, a mountain of evidence and you don't even have to consider michael cohen. plenty it without him he mike that is not the case, that is not intellectually honest. >> shannon: but we know the prosecution, those are the last attorneys as jury has heard from. now they have heard from the judge can! here in new york, the prosecution goes second, that is the way it works twomak the leave their impression with the journey -- jury as a have heard from the judge can! what you make of these notes so far, the questions about testimony from david pecker and michael cohen about the trump tower meeting that is kind of

describes the linchpin for this whole group to get together. essentially what they are hinting at is that conspiracy even though there's typically no conspiracy charge in this indictment. >> there's so many things it could mean, nobody knows with certainty. all we know is it looks like they are doing what they swore to do which is not rush to judgement, it's to go and first determine what the facts are, and did those facts and the evidence it was proven meet the evidence of the crime. they are not rushing through it, step-by-step it may be one maybe the group had a disagreement over what the facts were. and they're not expected to know weeks of testimony by heart especially because a judge took a week off or closing, it's not uncommon for them to say, okay,, we do back, we want clarification. >> shannon: 11 up play

something from a former trump white house lawyer about what he thinks on what the verdict may be, with the timing may be. here's what he said on tuesday as we were going into closing argument that day. >> i think we will have a verdict friday afternoon at the latest. >> he also think the jury will find trump guilty, how come? >> idea. i think while, it's a combination of things but primarily it's because the jury instructions almost require it. >> shannon: mark, your reaction to that. we all sat here and tried to parse through white judge juan merchan put together, of course at two sides with these jury instructions, they've now been delivered, he's made his decision, do you agree that the way that they were written, his argument is, that it leads the jury to a connection. >> not necessarily. like, the jury instructions, i would not be happy on the defense side, i certainly would

not like to have heard what the criminal charges were essentially of they are trying to prove into their closing argument. that would have made me nuts. now that said, i do like the idea of a possible verdict friday, jurors would rather enjoy the weekends if at all possible. they won't sacrifice our decisions just to get it done. but usually if they come to a consensus it's usually fridays as opposed to mondays. i dig as a 47:00 pm. i have no idea, nobody knows but that was my suggestion. >> shannon: yeah, we don't know. a little under here as we all sit and wait. it feels like to many of us it be sooner rather than later. fridays, weekends, very motivating to juries. they've been out of this for weeks. thank you very much for your time, don't go far, we will check in with lydia from foxbusiness network into the courtroom more than i have and she has excellent notes and insights as to where we go from

here. lydia, i need to take that you have from where the jury has been asked to hear back, it'll be reread to them? >> after getting this note, the jury was discharged to begin to their deliberations just a little after 11:30 o'clock today. their first node coming in before 3:00 is not that bad. i'm not surprised they have questions where they want to read testimony back. this has been a long trial with a significant a break in bet between, the end of testimony and closing arguments. and as was pointed out, when you and i was sitting in the overflow room earlier today, we listen to roughly an hours worth of jury instruction. you spanned more than 50 pages, justice judge juan merchan right into the jurors, they don't have to bring them into the jury deliberation rooms. and they are forced to apply those instructions to testimony that they are also recalling. i think this might be the first

of a series of questions and then think that is to be expected in this process. >> shannon: i think you are right, because the research involved instructions, and when we start covering this trial weeks ago, it's hard to remember even for us what was said at the. [ please stand by ] but clearly starting from the beginning and working their way back through there is something significant about the karen mcdougall story. what you make of that because this is about payments to stormy daniels, on karen mcdougall but her story featured prominently although she was on-call to the. [ please stand by ] >> you know, i'm so glad you pointed out because that's her mind everybody the charges in the indictment actually relate to stormy daniels and the way beat -- the reason we even had testimony about karen mcdougall being admitted into this cases because it was part of an alleged practice, it is part, it helps show there is an alleged cattle -- hedge and kills scheme. agency that the jurors have this

desire to hear more about that, they want to know about david pecker's phone call with donald trump in which they discussed whether donald trump should move forward with trying to buy the story rights. they want to know more about why was it that donald trump actually did not pay for that life rights to karen mcdougall story, that it was just american media, david pecker's company, they were left paying to the $150,000. and finally they want more information about those two meetings at trump tower, one from pecker talking about the meeting, another one also talking about the meeting. all of this suggests they are interesting -- interested to learn about the context of this alleged conspiracy, was it truly a meeting of the mines to buy the story rights and why. that seems to suggest they at least in this moment are not entertaining the question of where documents are falsified with the intent to defraud, they are thinking more about what is it maybe a conspiracy to

influence the election perhaps comment. >> shannon: your analysis has been excellent and so helpful for all of us covering this, sitting together on this topamax be think very much. i want to bring an anti- mccarthy again mccarthy again, i want to play something from andrew wiseman. our audience will recognize and remember, he was part of the molar investigation. here's what he said about what you feels about the judge in this case. >> with the judge, judge juan merchan, have like a man crush on him. he is such a great judge that it's hard to see the jurors wouldn't have the same impression. you just keep on thinking if you look to the dictionary for like judicial temperament, it's what you would get. such an impeccably fair trial. >> shannon: i'm guessing you don't feel the same way, you made the point earlier that jurors really looked at the judge, they identified if they

trust them, and the judge said this morning, i have no bias or opinion on this case, as a juror you should not think otherwise. >> he did say that it, he had about 15 seconds saying if you think i have an opinion you're wrong he's been a five-week success in his opinion. a bit like your mom making your sister tell you that she loves you. it's not terribly heartfelt. the fact that injure wiseman thinks that judge juan merchan was very fair and has a man crush, the prosecution rests. that's all you need to know about this judge, and andrew wiseman -- at a ziglar coming for me! i think they're coming for andy [ sirens ] you have the fifth amendment rights to not answer the question, the fact that injure wiseman loves that this guy who hates don't travel, to tell you lighting to know about this judge and whether or not it has been fair for both sides.

>> shannon: as of this judge made decisions on objections, ruling or is sustaining, did the defense at some point yesterday decided it's not worth objecting anymore because we are drawing objection to the bodyguard visit judges overruling everything we're trying to do, and not make us look bad leg were in the wrong. a judge has an enormous impact on a trial. >> totally. look, this judge told the jury, which is a correct proposition, that michael cohen's plea of guilty to the election law crimes is not admissible against president trump. he says it in a bland way and then he says now prosecutors remain for another 27 times reminded jury of those guilty pleas. and then yesterday when the yet again, unopposed ten times, 20 times, the reminder to the jury that this guy has pled guilty which is again not admissible

evidence. >> shannon: the guilt of president trump soon correct. >> shannon: it can be evidence but it can't be used for looking at -- i know you think -- >> well, it could be credibility. who wants to challenge it? the prosecutors don't want to challenge his credibility. but the thing is shannon, at the end of the argument, when the again repeated this to lake 127th time, the prosecutors objected and the judge says overruled. that shows the jury the defense lawyers are trying to do something, keep something from them. >> shannon: using the language today, referring to michael cohen as an accomplice could also be confusing, okay we have made for at the courthouse in manhattan with an updated, hello doing hello, we are waiting more information as the jury is going to revisit some of the testimony

from both david pecker and michael cohan. during that trump tower meeting in 2015, prosecutors alleged that a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election began, pacifically the jury is asking about the purchasing of the karen mcdougall story, which is not part of the criminal case here against the former president, that it refers to the stormy daniels payment, the prosecutors brought up the karen mcdougall story just establish a pattern and that was a story that david pecker ended up purchasing. and michael cohen was said to reimburse pecker until pecker eventually backed out of the deal because of legal concerns. other than that trump tower meeting, that is one of the few instances where former president donald trump is directly involved in something, as to what exactly happened in that meeting differs based off which witness you hearing from at that

time. that is why this trump tower meeting back in 2015 is so important where david pecker promised to be the eyes and ears of that campaign and to suppress negative stories about a former president donald trump, promote positive stories and also post or publish negative stories about his potable opponents. i mention hillary clinton earlier but also his republican opponents in the primary leading up to the 2016 nominations. so we continue, we weighed more information shannon, and we will come back when we have more. >> shannon: thank you a very much for meg outside of the courthouse, one of the former president trump's attorney, supporting resident jumping on resenting him as part of the legal team in this case. you wait now, how was the president feeling, how do you feel about this case and hand over the jury can! >> business as usual, nothing has changed in terms of our perspective. listening to the jury charges was concerning to be honest, i think they were, it's been

widely reported in siu came out of the jury charges that it is clearly any of the four underlying crimes he could have done because they don't care what it was, the judge said basically all you have to do is whether there was intent or not and that is been no proof of that. by the judge gave a very generous bandwidth to the prosecution and i think that's why the president's comments and sentiments are accurate. mother teresa cannot get out of this one because if you said, if you have a second, it could be for anything, for anyone of these five i think is, taxes, campaign, all of the things they showed no evidence of where they gave them so much breath that i think i have concerns. >> shannon: do you have faith in a fellow new yorkers as a jury? for sunday like a former president, but in the system here, the faith is in his hands. >> shannon i have not had faith in the state of new york sends

is that what they did to president trump and sorted working for him, i'll be honest with you, would have seen over the past few cases, what i've seen in some of the other cases in the state of new york, at the coronation with das and we have some information that has out always you today about judges affiliations, and other things like that, it's corrupt as can be. and fortunately the state of new york has failed its citizens, using it time and time again, it's failed its citizens for one party and that's silencing the republican party. and flunky at this point, had enough and great sound bites and this court has accuracy almost entirely block. i was on there for 11 weeks, and now i am here. it's a disgrace to the american people. we should all pray to save our country frankly at this point. >> shannon: do you think the jury -- jury can push through that, consider all of those things he! they were told to clamp the outside noise and outside voices

but the whole world is watching those, they are watching and waiting, they must feel the pressure of that, and wheat know there are at least 20 attorneys on the panel as well. do trust they will work through this? soon out of think it matters what your profession is, it's a good thing they're asking questions, looking at testimony, credibility, it's very important here, the credibility as of the one thing to the absolutely i only have none of the top to the bottom, and of the jury considers that and discredits that testimony that was frankly falls, that it all was in my opinion, you're going to be fine and we should get an acquittal. but in the state of new york, the jury charges of old were a bit unfair, very and fake frankly. and president trump as president trump. while they are doing release not about books and records, it's about -- it's a sideshow, it's way to stop the american people from looking at president biden's policies that are failing, it's a from

distracting. and if you look at what happened yesterday with robert de niro, we got an old-timer actor coming from california as a spokesperson for a campaign, the current administration running america? what a sad state of affairs. it's pathetic. >> shannon: led me ask you this, it seems like president trump predicted this before the first indictment even at -- happened with alvin bragg. he said it would be good for him, it has been in the polls and fundraising, it is our positive to him from this whole thing. >> from a political standpoint, i think yes, that is different. we have americans, you have people who were biden supporters, cannot imagine how or why but they are now waking up and saying well, this is not america, this is very un-american and we cannot survive another four years of this. if you want to look at it that way sure, but i think in choosing to hit rock bottom. i don't know why we could not

have continued on an upward trajectory of american morals, of the constitution. i'm not sure what we had to hit this low point to be honest but that's what gets him back in office. >> shannon: which i go to things like morals people as they, this is a case about former president, some new running for president, alleges that she had a relationship with him. that sparks a whole other conversation about morality, was running the country, voters in 2016 it was not a problem or they factored in about the exes hollywood tapes and they were comfortable setting president up to the white house. then four years to think about it how you performs now, president biden. but some of them will always have this vision that these kinds of dramas and things we just part of his package, part of what comes and there was president see what it's called extortion, assuming that happens with people when they are powerful, when they are strong voice and when people listen to them. it's a natural consequence of being eight very effective human being and this unfortunate

culture that we have, it's litigious, it's what america has become. joe biden unfortunate can't really do anything in office, so he has to use as a means of 70 making a quick a seven fall and make money. this is exactly a joe biden show. because he has to distract the american people. listen, the biden administration is not responsible for the straw, how can he say it's not can make it. >> shannon: it's a state trial, it's alvin bragg. do you think there's a blue commode of cubic it's not connected to the doj. the feds passed on to these election charges it. >> shannon, you should look at how many logs they have a state officials, letitia james, sandy willis visiting the white house and then tell me this is not a biden trial. >> shannon: it's the point i'm making, the feds passed on this case. >> yes, and then it came back, and alvin bragg passed on this. and then it came back when he decided to run for office. tell me how that is not an indication of joe but who just

sent his campaign down here with robert de niro yesterday is not a part of this chemic frankly any question that we hot of that was squashed yesterday, and if you have even more concerns with of he's involved on this, look at the back these publicizing, literally publicizing for tonight, to have his speech verdict comes out. that's a sad state of affairs, meanwhile our country is falling apart. >> shannon: do nothing that any president would want to weight on something that is an historic, of our president,'s part is as it, whatever the verdict or decision may be québec. >> at which he had the same sentiment about the border, fentanyl and our children being mutilated. i prefer he focused on the lit real things and sort of attacking his clinical opponents we just cannot beat. >> shannon: we will state what the jury does, thank you for joining by. could spring and a former new york congressman, neil, ask you this question, a candidate who over perform here in new york, according to a lot of people thought the state of new york, we saw the total political

correspondence from the washington examiner and also fox news contributor, welcome to you both. we will start with you, what do you make of new yorkers, they make over this journey, they are for manhattan, ali have known about dancho for long time, unless he had been living under a rock, how do you react to what we have heard from the courtroom chemic. >> it's impossible to find a fair jury of your peers in manhattan, this has been one of the many critiques with the design of this entire case, whether it is the prosecutor who campaigned on a pledge to take down president trump not knowing where to the crime was going to be, with the judge here, judge juan merchan who is not only presiding over this case but presided over the trump organization cases, the -- case, there are many different dynamics here for new yorkers at work against president trump and being able to obtain a fair

trial and the one had and co., you cannot look at them as a county that reflects the rest of america or the middle of ame america. >> shannon: okay. i want to put out some poll numbers as we look at how this may be impacting or playing a politically, this is from the new york times siena college, a trumpet leading and five keesling states, we got arizona, georgia, pennsylvania, nevada and wisconsin. trumpet leading all of those except for wisconsin. do you think that this drama surrounding him is already affecting voters. >> it appears to be, we were wondering what would happen if trump was indicted,, would it -- well a turbocharged him and he won easily. the question is, what is going

on with this trial and voters, what are we in week seven, it was covered wall-to-wall in the media, and it has not made a bit of difference. and his polls nationally, which he would decide in reelection. so one more question, if he is convicted, are there some people who otherwise will say i won't vote for him because he is convicted. those are questions we cannot answer right now but sophia has made zero difference. >> shannon: this is from political, the biden campaign makes a guerrilla style pit bit on the trump trial. is as many close to biden have expressed the media is obsessed with trump, that is nothing new, making it difficult at times to garner attention for the incumbent. let people familiar with the decision saying the stand came out of desperation, as it biden

is trailing, so many robert de niro coming up here yesterday, you're able to categorizes as, hey,, that looks like the biden initiation is in some way involved in this case. was it an unforced error by the biden administration to send him down here, and actor? because it they knew that all the media would be here, was it a campaign issue not related to this trial. so there's another potential note, other activity in the courtroom we will keep you updated or we can find about that to. >> i don't think robert de niro was making a reasonable and granted presentation of facts, using the present troubles going to destroy the world is that really what president biden and his campaign wants to put out? then getting this back and forth in the engagement, screaming and

cursing at other new yorkers who don't share his opinion. it clearly was an unforced error and i'm pretty sure they won't bring out robert de niro again and they should all be bringing any other celebrity friends who are not representative of america. >> shannon: more information from maria, is out of the courtroom about notes number 2, it says there is a request to rehear the judge's instructions twomak keep in mind they were 55 pages long, we don't know what portion. the judge suggests bring the jury back in and say are they looking for testimony requested and asked of the needed instructions reread. we will continue to try to find out what we can about the jury, what these notes mean, what they are looking for and how the judge will handle each of these things, they are looking for testimony from pecker michael cohen and they want to look more about let karen mcdougall story. [ ♪♪ ] c1 thank you for