violations. one of those three additional prongs. so it's kind of confusing that they are there. perhaps they are stuck in the weeds where the prosecutors focused their closing arguments. i would want them on the baseline question, the bottom element of was this, in fact, wrong to put legal expenses in there. if that's not an issue all the rest of the elements are no problem. >> bill: pecker testified they were doing deals before 2015, did he not? >> that's my recollection. >> bill: why we read this portion an hour ago whether or not it was connected to any sort of campaign. >> dana: maybe that's what the jury is asking perhaps. >> bill: you think about trump's wealth, how much did $130,000 mean to him? >> right. when you think about that instructions about irrespective. would he have done it irrespective of the campaign. not that he would have done it on any random tuesday but when he had a spike in his celebrity, would he have perhaps come forward? let's say a talk show went wild

and he wanted to kind of scrub the internet or scrub people of speaking poorly about him would even gaugeed in that. that's the irrespective or if it would have done some random tuesday before the candidacy. >> dana: hold that thought. right now believe it or not the supreme court is expected to issue one or more new opinions. some of the high-profile cases are possible ruling on trump presidential immunity, gun rights, abortion access, and social media censorship. we have shannon bream on stand by for that. now to another potential decision gripping the nation. we are waiting for a verdict in the new york trial of former president donald trump. day two of jury deliberations underway now. welcome to a new hour of "america's newsroom." i am said america's courtroom. i'm dana perino. good morning. >> bill: good morning to folks at home.

if we get immunity today from scotus, that would be a whopper. >> dana: do you think it would short circuit this? it could happen. >> bill: right now as of 10:01 in new york the jury is back inside the courtroom and the judge is rereading the jury instructions which they requested late yesterday at 4:00 in the afternoon to have the judge repeat a portion of his instructions to the jury. this will go on for a long time. it appears pages 6-35. that's 29 pages. take some time. >> dana: you can't increase the speed. >> bill: we'll begin a new hour with lydia hu live outside the courtroom in downtown manhattan. lydia, bring us up to date from there. hello. >> good morning, bill and dana. the judge right now is going through this process of reading those instructions. this is a huge swath, very large portion of the instructions because they span 55 pages and

want roughly 29 pages read back to them. what is covered by that, a lot of the basic ground rules. what is evidence, what types of inferences can be drawn from the evidence. what can they conclude from redactions and instructions on the limiting instruction and the presumption of innocence. the fact that president trump didn't testify in his own defense and didn't have to all the way down to the explanation of the counts. falsification of business records and importantly as we've heard discussed many times, this interesting instruction from judge merchan about the unlawful means that the jury is searching for in determining whether a state law may have been violated or there was an intent to violate a state law by unlawfully influencing an election and the fact the jurors need not be unanimous in figuring out what criteria is in this case to satisfy that

unlawful means are present here. president trump arrived here about 30 minutes ago and did speak to our cameras on the way into courtroom this morning. here is what he had to say on his way in. >> here we go again, five weeks i've been here, i'm gagged. i would like to answer all of your questions, they are easy questions to answer but i'm gagged so i can't talk as much as i would like to about this ridiculous case that is hurting our country so badly. >> i wanted to play that sound bite for you because he is talking about this gag order. not only are we watching out for a verdict, a decision from the jury in this case, which these deliberations are ongoing, but as soon as we get the decision from the jurors, the defense can move immediately to ask this gag order be lifted and it will be interesting to see. the gag order should be lifted. whether judge merchan honors that request immediately and allows president trump to share

his feelings freely about all aspects of this case. that could also be happening very soon. >> bill: here is the note and goes to what you are just reporting. the judge is telling the jurors right now about the presumption of innocence and burden of proof saying you must find the defendant not guilty unless the people have proven beyond a reasonable adoubt. the defendant is not required to prove he is not guilty. the burden of proof never shifts from the people to the defendant. maria checks in and says some of these jurors right now, especially some of the women in the second row, nodding their heads at times at merchan is reading this out about cohen's guilty plea. two people in the front row are looking around the room. two women in the back row intently watching the judge. trump appears to be turned toward the jury sitting back in his chair. seems relaxed. >> dana: okay. calm. >> bill: that's where we are at

10:05. >> dana: breathing normally and calmly. the former attorney for president trump and candidate for missouri attorney general. want to get to that in a moment. play for me and for will here this is president trump earlier today. call for number 32. >> i just want to say this is a very sad day for america. the whole world is watching and it is a very sad day for new york. i have gone through two of these trials already, the same kind of a judge. all rigged, the whole thing, the whole system is rigged. >> dana: watch this. andrew weissmann, the prosecutor in the robert mueller trump/russia special inrest gags and what he thinks about the judge. >> with respect to judge merchan i'm right now i have a man crush on him. he is such a great judge that it is hard to see that the jurors wouldn't have the same impression. he is just -- you just keep thinking if you look in a dictionary for what judicial

temperament, that's what you get. >> dana: everybody has an opinion about the judge. a strong one from weissmann. >> weissmann knows something about witch hunts against president trump. i think the opposite of judge merchan. i think he has been terribly biased against this throughout this entire trial. we moved to have him recused off the case because we believe under law he is biased and shouldn't have been anywhere near this case. all that having been said it seems like the jury is really deliberating and considering this case. they are looking at the evidence and the ground rules and we feel that if they just do their job they will return a verdict of acquittal. president trump did nothing wrong here. >> bill: part of the jury instructions read to the jurors, if you find any witnesses testified falsely, you may disregard that witness's testimony. there is no formula for

evaluating a person's truthfulness. that's up for these men and women to decide. when i was in court two weeks ago michael cohen was on the stand for 4 1/2 hours. there were a total of six objections. some overruled, some sustained. no side bars. i was enthralled by the entire experience. the lawyers said bill, it's boring. no, to me it is extraordinary to watch this. it was as if the prosecutor was reading a book to michael cohen and michael cohen was reading a book back to the prosecutor. it was well done, q and a, flip the page, q and a, q and a. during that day, they had a state's exhibit about an llc that he applied for and they showed a signature that was either his or someone else's and the prosecutor said was that true or was that a lie? he said that was a lie. and then several minutes later they got to another piece of the

document and she said is that true or is that a lie? he said that was a lie. now, going back to this point about whether the defendant told the truth or not, that may -- that may be able to be excused by a juror because the prosecutor brought it out from him. that would not be considered a lie on the stand in my view, would it? >> i think when you look at the cross examination of michael cohen, todd blanche did a masterful job exposing him for the liar that he is. pointed out numerous inconsistencies in his story and pointed out how aspects of the story he told on direct examination couldn't possibly be true. i think the only crimes that michael cohen's testimony really tended to prove at all are crimes that michael cohen committed against president trump. president trump being the victim. he admitted to grand larceny and likely federal bank fraud. this is a guy who has 0

credibility. >> bill: top you there. those were lies in the past. jury instructions say did someone lie on the stand? >> it is clear that michael cohen lied on the stand in any mumber of ways, most notably over the october 2016 call with keith schiller he claimed was about stormy daniels but defense conclusively showed had nothing to do with that. it had to do with a 14-year-old who threatened him on twitter. it is absurd. the whole case is absurd and to me it's shameful that we have come as far as we have that this case saw the inside of a courtroom at all. >> dana: two possible scenarios and a quick answer on both. if the jury comes back today and the president is acquitted does the trump team take any action against judge merchan? >> i think we would have to consider our legal options at that point. but i think the case formal i shallous prosecution is very strong. this is not a case that would

have been brought against any defendant not named donald trump and any defendant who frankly wasn't running for president. >> dana: if they return and there is a conviction and some or all of its parts, what is the next step then from the trump team? >> we'll speedily appeal and get the conviction thrown out on appeal. as quickly as possible. new york appellate procedure is arcane. it may take some time to get that to the courts we need to get it in front of but we'll move with all possible haste to undo any kind of unjust verdict. >> bill: which court would that be? manhattan or albany? >> it would be in the new york appellate division and the new york court of appeals in albany. >> dana: hopefully they don't take all of july and august off like the europeans. >> bill: thank you very much. as it unfolds in manhattan in realtime you have a violent case unfolding in another new york city. a driver tried to run over

jewish students with his car outside of a church. alexis brings us this breaking story. hello to you. >> bill, good morning. brooklyn, a lot of people say they're on edge after that wild incident that happened at the school right here behind me. the suspect was yelling out according to people we talked to i'll kill all of the jews before he drove on the sidewalk targeting a group of jewish men. it captured the scary incident yesterday afternoon. the driver goes right up onto the sidewalk in brooklyn speeding toward a group of men. the jewish men scrambled to try to get out of the way as fast as they could and then the driver took off. investigators tell us five men were on the sidewalk altar geted ranging from 44 to 18. members of this church tell me they are still traumatized. >> he started out driving on the

sidewalk almost hitting the light pole on the corner. two boys standing right there. he saw the light pole. i think he realized it won't work and backed up and went to the front of the building and tried to ram them. drove onto the sidewalk trying to ram them and then everybody ran away and thank god he didn't hit anybody. >> no injuries reported. this guy you are looking at was arrested. the 58-year-old faces more than a dozen charges including attempted murder and a hate crime. menacing as a hate crime and reckless driving to name a few. the mayor of new york city says this driver appeared to be mentally and emotionally disturbed. the governor of new york said the state police are helping with the case. a lot of people have a lot of unanswered questions. >> thank you. alexis mcadams in new york also. >> dana: not right. we have much more coming from the new york versus trump trial. jurors are there being read

instructions and then going to hear again testimony from pecker and cohen. those are the two things they asked for. critics threw everything they had at him over a flag controversy and now supreme court justice samuel alito giving them the back of his hand. we'll be right back. ng and storage until june 10th... and see why pods has been trusted with over 6 million moves. don't wait, use promo code 25now to save. book at pods.com today. the all-new tempur-pedic adapt mattress was designed to help make aches and pains a thing of the past. because only tempur-material eases your pressure points in a way no other mattress can. for a limited time, save up to $500 on select tempur-pedic adjustable mattress sets.

i'd like to take a moment to address my fellow veterans, because i know so many of you have served our country honorably. one of the benefits that we as a country give you as a veteran is the eligibility for a va loan, for up to 100 percent of your home■s value. if you need cash for your family call newdayusa. with automatic authority from the va we can say yes when banks say no. give us a call.

♪ music ♪ ♪ unnecessary action hero! ♪ ♪ unnecessary. ♪ was that necessary? no. neither is missing your daughter's competition to do payroll. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you don't have to miss your daughter's big day. time to shine. get paycom and make the unnecessary unnecessary.

>> bill: welcome back, 10:18. court has been in session, do the math, 48 minutes now here on day two of deliberations. jury deliberating more than five hours listening to the judge read back one of 26 pages of jury instructions, wow. turley says they're at the point where they might show some intentional conduct with the state of mind to carry out an offense. they are now receiving instructions on specific charges including the instruction that

they cannot infer criminal liability by mere presence, all right? john is with us, andy mccarthy, judge jeanine, we have a cast of thousands continuing. great to have you back here. you write a piece in national review. the headline and allow you to opine. trump's trial is already damaging the office of the presidency. why do you say that? >> the very weakness and flaws in this case open up the door for any d.a. in the future to sue presidents on the most flimsy charges. that's the real problem. it has never been a problem to prosecute a president. but if you are going to prosecute a president it has to be for something serious. dangerous to the national interest. all the witnesses and the law ought to be airtight. instead we've seen this kind of free wheeling prosecution where

witnesses have been paraded through who had nothing to do or really irrelevant to the legal charges. we still don't really know what the legal crimes here are and it doesn't seem to be all that important even if trump is convicted you would look and say what does this have to do with the presidency? that's the problem for me. this case, convict or acquit, opens the door to all kinds of harassment of future presidents. it makes all of us worse off because presidents won't be able to make the tough decisions in the future without having to worry about being prosecuted and sued. >> bill: what if the supreme court rules in a matter of weeks or sooner -- or today -- on the question of immunity? >> it's really hard to predict what the court will do here on the immunity question. the text and the history run against immunity. but the court, the justices seem

very concerned with the policy reasons to allow immunity. and this kind of case puts this on display. the problem for trump is that the case at the court now is immunity from federal prosecution. the thing that worries me about harassing future presidents. local prosecutors elected as democrats or republicans who have an axe to grind or opposition to an elected president and make up crimes as we are seeing now under obscure, tissue-thin state indictments and then harass a president and make it hard to do the job that presidents are elected to do for us all. >> dana: the international criminal court as well. judge jeanine i want to ask you something about what jonathan turley said in regards to michael cohen as an accomplice. accomplice to what? >> you know, that's such a great question, dana. the truth is that in this

indictment, there is no allegation of access oral lieability that president aided or abetted a particular crime. all of a sudden in the charge. not in the indictment, not in the case, not in summation but in the charge the judge says michael cohen as a matter of law has aided and abetted a crime involving a federal election campaign violation. the amazing part of this is there didn't even need to be any evidence admitted of a federal campaign election violation. and the judge says but i only did it, folks, so you could assess his credibility and give context to the jury. now, if you want to assess someone's credibility you put in crimes like lying and stealing, which michael cohen has a myriad history of lying and stealing. but at the same time, you don't all of a sudden hit the jury in

the summation and say he is aiding and abetting the same kind of conduct that the president is being charged with here. it is almost as though this is a magic show, dana. they've got a rabbit they are pulling out of a hat but they waited until the charge to the jury. there is no aiding and abetting here other than what judge merchan has told this jury. it was shocking to me. i have spoken to other prosecutors in new york never heard of anything like this happening. they made a connection in the charge without any evidence and without the defense being able to defend themselves against this. >> bill: they are going over what could be considered in the end maybe this is really, really significant in the end and maybe it is not. the part of the unlawful means the judge is describing to the jurors. violation of federal election act of 1971, falsification of business records, and violation of tax laws.

and why could that be significant? i do believe, andy and trey, that this means that trump could be convicted in a divided jury, meaning four on this, four on that, and four on the other for a total of 12 jurors but only a few jurors agreeing on the underlying intent leading to that specific second crime. for our audience to repeat. violation of federal election law, the act that was passed 30, 40 years ago. falsification of business records in violation of tax laws. andy and trey, how can you do that? where has that happened before where you accept a divided judgment? >> i will start, although i think one of the things to be really concerned about is the point that trey has raised a number of times. how do we know it's just those

three unless we have a verdict sheet that indicates that? but you know, there is a new york case that goes back about 40 years that involves a burglary and a new york statute that talks about burglary to commit another felony where a court found that you don't -- the jury didn't have to be unanimous what the second felony was after the burglary. the reason that doesn't work as an analogy to this situation is burglary is what we call a crime like in and of itself an evil act. no one breaks into your home not to commit another crime. so regardless of what the person is up to in your home, you know they are up to committing another crime and the court said we aren't going to make them be unanimous what the other felony was. this is not that situation. this is a situation where you

have a very arguable misdemeanor conduct in terms of falsifying records. i frankly don't think they've proved fraudulent innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. they are using a second crime to inflate the misdemeanor into a felony. therefore, the second crime is actually more serious than the pretext for the prosecution, this falsification of business records. there is no way that you could have a situation where you turn a misdemeanor into a felony and you escape the two-year institute yu of limitations allowing you to have a six year statute of limitations which is why we're all here without having the jury not be unanimous what the second crime is. that's preposterous. >> bill: we were all confounded an hour ago. trey, you won't to weigh? >> the short answer to your question i've never seen it

before. i did a number of death penalty cases where i had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what that other crime was, kidnapping, rape, burglary. this all could have been solved if a judge had sent a special verdict form. you have to let us know what the secondary crime was. we find him guilty of the misdemeanor and we'll put a tuxedo on the misdemeanor, make it a felony. these are three options and this is what each juror picks. a special verdict form, easy for reasons that baffle me, it was not done in this case. >> bill: clear as mud, right? >> dana: i'm getting there but glad we have the legal eagles with us. they are key to all of us. shannon bream is here. we'll continue to her in a moment. do we need to take a break? let's take a quick break. shannon has news on what the supreme court has just come back with opinions being released

today. stay with us.

i hear it all the time. people tell me they'd love to buy gold. but because it's gold - they think it must be complicated. it isn't. not with rosland capital. with rosland... the entire process from start to finish . . call rosland capital today at 800-630-8900, 800-630-8900. that's 800-630-8900.

>> bill: during the commercial break they ended the read back of instructions, page 6-35ish out of 55 total. the read back is over and the jury instructions. now they go to the read back starting with david pecker. when the judge reads about quote proving beyond a reasonable doubt a few jurors looking down rubbing foreheads with their hands. add that to the tea leaves that we're trying to read right now. your update. >> dana: the supreme court has just ruled unanimously in favor of the nra in a first amendment case. what's this all about? shannon bream is with us and has her finger on the pulse of this case as well. we've been waiting for this one. what does it mean? >> so essentially what the nra has said there is an official here in new york they say was

actually putting the thumb on the scale against them going to financial institutions or other regulated bodies and essentially saying don't do business with the nra in a way to hobble them and keep them from being able to go forward. the court said the second circuit got this wrong. a win for the nra. the case gets to continue. they get to pursue their first amendment rights in this case. so essentially a win for the nra. the case is far from over. if a government official gets involved with trying to pressure regulated entities to stop doing business with a legal entity, here the case apparently 9-0 yes there are unanimous opinions at the supreme court sending it back down to say the nra has a case here. >> dana: thank you so much. so we have that one. we don't have the presidential immunity case. that could be next thursday. >> bill: judge alito not stepping down from trump's

cases. david spunt has is latest now live from d.c. good morning. >> good morning to you. he announced his decision to two rare letters addressed to congress saying he will continue hearing cases and will not recuse himself. this all began just about a couple of weeks ago when a picture surfaced of an upside down flag hung outside their home for several days in january 2021. there it is. just days after the january 6th capitol riot. democrats say it says stop the steal effort when trump said the 2020 election was stolen. democrats related he recuse himself with a january 6th before the court and the former president's immunity claims yet to be decided. he told fox news shannon bream weeks ago that his wife hung the flag after a verbal altercation with a neighbor who used what he

called the vilest thing that can be addressed to a woman. the neighbor admits to using the phrase told the times the two did have words several weeks after that upside down flag was flown contradicting what the justice told fox news. alito said i had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of the flag. i was not even aware of the upside down flag until it was called to my attention. as soon as i saw it i asked my wife to take it down but for several days she refused. justice alito addressed a second flag that flew in his new jersey vacation home. an appeal to heaven flag. members say it has connotations because it was carried by some outside the capitol january 6th. it dates back to the revolutionary war. it was recently removed from the san francisco civic center plaza

after flying there for 60 years. >> bill: david, thanks. there you go. david spunt live. >> dana: right now jurors are hearing portions of david pecker's testimony again. they are done with the instructions and now hearing the testimony of david pecker, after that michael cohen. we'll have a lot more right after the break. if you have heart failure, entrust your heart to entresto. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. novartis may help you save on your prescription. i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's.

what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner.

and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

>> bill: back inside the courtroom. the testimony of pecker is still being read back to the jurors. a couple of interesting notes if turley, also maria. pecker said he believed the story on mcdougal would be embarrassing both to himself and to his campaign. turley adds that's interesting because it shows a dual interest in avoiding such stories, one against trump and one against the campaign. also turley adds that pecker

says trump said i normally do not buy stories because they always come out. kind of wasn't wrong about that issue in the end. maria adds jurors again appear to be playing close attention and why not, they have been there for more than a month. then a note about cohen talking to pecker saying that rip up the agreement, cohen was quote screaming at pecker and said i'm the lawyer and can't understand why he is concerned. so these jurors now, seven men, five women, believe this portion of the trial at the moment, anyway, is critical. kayleigh mcenany and karl rove join us on set. hello to both of you. care to take a crack? >> i'm thoroughly confused but i guess most of america is now. this is going to rivet us until it is resolved but it is complicated. i'm still trying to figure out the federal election commission said we aren't doing anything. the biden department of justice

looked at it and said we're not doing anything. bragg's predecessors as the democratic d.a. of manhattan said i'm taking a pass at it and how does the case that starts with supposedly a federal election law violation end up being governed by a new york law regarding business records? i'm still confused. >> dana: what bothers me about it in the bigger scheme of things. this case of the four against president trump if we think of four, this case by most democrats' standpoint was considered the weakest of the four. the other three are now either postponed or on hold and they aren't going to happen before the election. the democrats wanted so much to be able to say convicted felon donald trump, the opponent of joe biden, that now you have some saying obviously he is guilty. it rained overnight and we know he is guilty. that is difficult for me to understand how they stomach that themselves. look themselves in the mirror and say i can believe in that.

when they are at the same time talking about the lack of trust in institutions. >> fantastic point. when this indictment came out in april of 2023 i have running list of commentators who dismissed it out of hand. now the other three cases are pushed after the election. "new york times" never before in state new york election law has it been brought against a federal campaign. now you have what i would say commentators reversing their point of view. they want what the biden label wants a convicted felon label. an ill conceived plan for the biden campaign to do a victory dance. they said the white house including the campaign even though they're separate biden world stays away from the cases. that was a smart move. i would not touch this with a ten foot pole but they are

touching it. >> dana: they'll touch it and the "washington post" editorial board agrees with you that they shouldn't do it. >> bill: karl, you write in the "wall street journal" about the comical aspect of a lot of this and you are jumping off point in robert de niro's appearance we watched together on "america's newsroom" earlier in the week. it didn't stop there. >> yeah. >> bill: american politics have gone in a direction folks like you would not even predict, i believe. >> who is going to decide this election? a small group of undecided voters in a somewhat larger group of people weakly linked to their choice and weakly linked because they prefer to have two other choices than the ones they've got. why are both campaigns, take de niro, speaking to the hardest core of the hard core, the base of the base, with this outlandish rhetoric nobody who is up for grabs in in election will believe. do we believe as de niro said

that donald trump wants to destroy new york city, wants to destroy, america, and wants to destroy the world. really? one thing to say his policies will hurt the city, country and world but to say he is a mad villain who wants to blow up the world. he is sitting in a volcano someplace talking about lasers. it is absurd. similarly, marjorie taylor greene saying boiler point language that is normally in a federal search warrant meant that joe biden wanted to assassinate donald trump during the search of mar-a-lago and the f.b.i. was ready to take fire and aim and fire away. please, that was so outlandish the russians picked it up and star on russian tv. they want to use that bit of misinformation to paint us in a wrong fashion. the winner of this election will be the campaign that figures out that it's better to talk about

in the case of trump immigration, the problem at the border, inflation, what's happening in our cities, the out of control spending, fires around the world, woke and be specific about those being problems and get rid of all this other sort of extraneous stuff designed to inflame the people ready to go for their respective candidates. >> that's right. a poll on what are you closely following news about? you know at the top of that was 62%, inflation, then came immigration, then came election legitimacy. at the bottom was the trump trial at 42%. 20% fewer following the trump trial than inflation. if i'm trump, let's say there is a conviction. i would say 12 people had their say on a stormy daniels payment. i want a discussion about your grocery bill payment, your mortgage payment, your gas payment. turn this on its head. 12 people came to a verdict. the verdict will be decided by

200 million people. whatever the universe of voters in on november 5th, 2024. don't talk to the edges. talk to suburban voter and the woman, independent voter in the middle and you can prevail. >> dana: she has focus and on top of it. >> bill: thank you, karl. >> dana: while we wait for this verdict we have a look at what could happen if trump is convicted. jonathan, there you are. >> the sentencing possibilities for the former president range from essentially nothing, no penalties at all, to spending what would amount to the rest of his life behind bars in new york's ryker's island prison. realistically neither of those seems likely. complete discharge would be unusual after a felony conviction as would any lengthy prison term given trump has no prior criminal record and that the crime in question here is a non-violent one. but judge juan merchan could impose a relatively short prison

sentence of a matter of months or split sentence including some time behind bars and three or more years of probation or three years of conditional discharge. probation is also a possibility as a stand alone sentence as is that conditional discharge. probation would involve regular checkins with new york city probation department and whatever other conditions the judge chooses. those could, for instance, include traveling restrictions. that would clearly have an impact on trump's ability to campaign. now if judge merchan decided the supervisory nature of probation isn't necessary but a discharge that the president needed to complete whatever conditions the judge orders over a three-year period. so if there is a guilty verdict, there will be a huge amount of pressure on judge merchan, who will have very wide leeway in deciding trump's sentence. also worth noting, dana, that any sentence the judge chooses

might end up being stayed until after the inevitable appeal of a conviction and everything i've just said all depends on the jury delivering a guilty verdict, of course, in the first place. >> dana: thank you. that deliberation is underway right now. we'll have much more from new york versus trump coming right up. e complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪) veterans, need money for major home repairs? why not think outside a bank? get up to $70,000 with a newday 100 va cash out loan.

why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. can i make my side softer? i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. can it help us sleep better and better? please? sleep number does that. 94 percent of smart sleepers report better sleep. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus special financing. shop now at sleepnumber.com

>> bill: we're one hour and 27 minutes. jurors still in the courtroom listening to the court reporters read back the transcript of david pecker's testimony happened more than a month ago. they're now at the point where pecker had a meeting with trump that lasted 20 or 25 minutes and appears based on the notes getting from folks inside this cuts both ways. pecker was using trump's stories to help sell his publication. and it could also have cut another way where the publication or the prevention of said story could help trump and

his campaign. i think there might be a critical question in this as shannon bream comes back into our conversation. did pecker testify that trump was worried about his wife or his family or did he even go there? >> well, there were statements from pecker when he said i thought this would be bad for him probably embarrassing personally and also mentioned the campaign. there are times where he mentioned something of a duality which again gets us back to the jury instruction we were talking about a couple of hours ago where there is leeway there that gives the jury some effort to look around. remember, hope hicks also testified that president trump was worried about his family. worried about the first lady. she wasn't the first lady but worried about melania and his family and the impact. pecker goes back to 1988 talking about that he had wheeled and dealt with president trump on these stories before, good or bad. he had done it for other

celebrities. it opens that door to the your eye instruction. you don't have to see it as a campaign expenditure. if there were family considerations as hope hicks talked about and pecker mentioned i worried it could be embarrassing for him personally leaves an opening for the jury to say maybe it wasn't a campaign expenditure. >> defense is pushing the testimony about pecker admitting to gaps what occurred ten years ago. >> dana: shannon, 90 seconds we have remaining walk us through. what does the rest of the day look like? are we going to be on pins an needles waiting to see what happens after they get through the instructions and testimony? >> yeah, it is taking such a long time for the read backs and jury instruction and the testimony they wanted to hear again and they'll go back into deliberations and lunch time and they can deliberate through that. whether they cut off at 4:30 or

so. i don't think they were later unless they thought they were close to making a decision. it took a lot of time to turn around that testimony they asked for yesterday afternoon. so if the court has these kinds of lags, this could really take a long time unless the portion they wanted to hear about now is the only crux of the disagreement in the jury room. we don't know. it is back to waiting. >> bill: all right. you got it. shannon, thank you so much. good point at the end there. is this the one thing they're hung up on or do they have a laundry list of things? we don't know. >> dana: you read from notes that four of the jurors in the back of the jury box, women, were all nodding along as the judge was reminding them the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. who knows what that means? they were nodding along. >> bill: one woman looking down. she might be taking notes. >> dana: lots more to come. harris faulkner will take you through. he