how do you thank the white house is trying to digest this and engagement messaging they go outlook also knowing the president's son is facing 2 criminal trials of his own. >> they have a lot to deal with right now. 1 joe biden has been explains in great bed is cycles which is why i think they sent robert down here to dangle this shiny object all the press would go running to. >> need it didn't work the way they hope. >> although here we are still parked -- talking about a. i think hundred biden's trial next week could be an issue for sure. but i think there is seeing if it's backfiring for them as well. it's quite an interesting potable situation all around. >> we continue to wait on that jury. carry think you're popping out with us that is the story may 30th 2024 but as always the story goes on. leah see you back here tomorrow at 3:00. you're world starts right now >> neil: alright thank you shannon 11 hours and still no

sign of a verdict. at least not yet pictures to liberate for a third or second i should say in new york versus trump trial. focusing on testimony from trump's former fixer michael collen and former publisher david pecker. where all this heading? we have guests to weigh in on it right now. welcome everybody i'm neil cavuto. let's get right to it, nate foy i should say here's what is interesting about this, it could go for another couple of hours but it could also wrap up and a half an hour character we know? >> well kneel the jury could decide to stay as late as 6:00 pm eastern tonight and we're just waiting for more updates, so far they've gone over 3 notes the jury has requested so far today in court just in the past 20 minutes former president donald trump is criticizing the judge and jury instructions specifically on true social call them

unconstitutional and unfair. the 3 notes that have gone over today so far included revisiting testimony from michael cohen and david packer as well as what the jury can infer from facts presented at the trial pack and then the judge just revisited, reread 29 pages of the jury instructions. as part of those instructions, a big part has to do with michael collins testimony is specifically. remember he is the only person directly connecting former president donald trump to the stormy daniels deal. but cohen is considered an accomplice in this trial. the instructions read a defendant may not be convicted of any crime upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it's supported by corroborative evidence. so that means sword alone is not enough to convict trump. the jury also went over there are 3 options for the underlying crime trump is accused of. the jury can pick between a federal election campaign act violation, falsification of other business records, or a tax

law violation which is something trump criticized today incorporate listen here. >> it's called victim. pick him and you have to be unanimous. just a couple votes. >> so again neil the jury can decide to stay late if they're inching closer to a verdict that we've no indication that is the case right now, so we're just waiting for another update and perhaps another question but a judge. will let you know if we get anything else. back to you. >> thank you for that nate. we've got tom to preback with us and mercedes cohen, welcome. tom to you first, what do we read 11 hours into jury deliberations and how it's going? >> this tree seems to have gone down to business quickly neil. 3 hours into deliberations specific requests to have certain portions of the testimony back. interestingly they were focused

on events that occurred at the beginning of the timeline, so to speak, david packer's testimony and the like are they also asked the jury instructions to be read back which to me is for punishment that's not a short endeavor it takes about an hour to read those instructions. is curious neil under new york law typically jury instructions are not actually handed over physically to the jury in their deliberations, they are read out loud by the judge and that is it. unless you're paying attention for the full hour and these are exceedingly complex instructions it's totally understandable the jurors cannot remember what these instructions were needed to have them read back. so the jury's clearly taking its duties seriously, its dove into the evidence and my guess is we will not get a verdict today possibly tomorrow. >> neil: you know mercedes a lot of people read in to the type of information jurors were originally asking for dating back to the pecker testimony and obviously what we heard out of michael cohen. surmising they are going

earliest first and sequentially. that may have been only 2 for because they haven't gone for their witnesses down the road. so what to make of that? >> certainly i am sure the defense is a little concerned that they're looking at david packer's testimony. he was very clear about the conversations that he had about these catching co and having conversations about stories that needed to be suppressed. some stories that should have been highlighted to really help donald trump out in the campaign. it was something similar to some of the concerns the defense have had but they try to deflect by focusing so aggressively on michael corn. by the way it is great, michael cohen is the prosecution's achilles heel. the more you focus on whether or not you can nest the case on michael cohen, the judge already said you can't do so, you have to further corroboration, the other carp -- corroboration could be entry pecker who is clear about what the purpose was behind paying off these types of

stories to help in the former president terms campaign. >> tom packwood and that he read as an advantage to the prosecution? >> has. i think it could be read as an advantage to the prosecution but i thank the thing that's important to keep in mind here is these jury requests don't necessarily reflect what the major -- majority of jurors are interested in our thinking are sometimes even have these types of requests emanate from a single juror who says, you know, when a minute i dormer exacted what pecker said i think it's important i'd like to have it heard back and then they go and request the judge read it back. so i wouldn't be so quick as to say because the jury is interested in this that means most of the jurors or, for all we know there could just be 1 iconic -- iconoclastic juror who was to hear it back. >> neil: let me switch gears to what's going on in this courthouse and i guess everyone has to stick pretty close together not be in the same room i don't know what room the

president is in versus the prosecution or the defense team but they are all supposed to be relatively close together in the event the jurors make a decision i guess. or they want to be called back into the courtroom to be heard evidence or what howdy. is not unusual to this case? the case of a former president who lives in the city and has a home in the city relatively nearby but he has to lasted out with everyone. >> honestly knew they are bound by the judge's instructions and i'm certain the judge has instructed the parties to stay close especially because at a moments notice they have discouraged quickly into the courtroom and listen to whether there is a verdict, whether they're having trouble or want instructions reread to them, there are so many things that can happen it's not unusual for

the parties to be directed to stay close buy because thanks are going to come and go. certainly this has been such an unpredictable case stay by day. that's why i'm certain the judge has require the parties to stay vary close in case there are any questions the jury may have been on an egg in you both touched on the powerful weekend approaching and how maybe it puts an extra pep in your step trying to get it wrapped up but couldn't it work around the other way atomically and you're in the middle of being 1 of the most iconic and important hi story legal cases in american history, would you want it to end? just to rush out of barbecue? out i don't want to say milk it for all its work but you are in the middle of history here why rush it? >> feel free to use that term neil there are instances where jurors are self extending their service and what is necessary precisely because they like to be in the limelight and they like to get the cork paid for lunches and dinners and that

sort of thing. but luck i think my extremes at least there is truth to the idea when you have a weekend coming up or holiday coming up there is a bit of hydraulic pressure on the jury to decide until he, emotionally i am sure there are at least some jurors thinking we're going to get this thing wrapped by friday so we can go home to our families and have it done for the can. not to say they're going to force a decision or reach an outcome after not 100% certain it's the right outcome but oftentimes in these group deliberations there is a general consensus that if we can reach a decision by 5:00 friday let's do everything we can to make that decision. >> neil: and sometimes there is no reading a share number of charges against someone versus how long the jury could deliver a peer i know it's 11 hours we're talking about right now and it's roughly the same amount of time back in 1987 jurors were deliberating over the fate he as

partners were facing dozens of counts as it turns out all of them were exonerated on all charges. only reason i mention it mercedes is it took 21 days and hours to come to that with almost as many charges or counts against him as against donald trump. donald trump has more as a single individual but sometimes we are surprised because arrogant to that and i mention that yesterday because the overwhelming consensus at the time in 87 was that donovan was going to live the rest of his life in jail. that was the overwhelming sentiment, the press that followed it. than they had this decision that exonerated all of them. so, sometimes we can get the wrong idea right? >> so, what we could have surmised if it had been a quick turnaround by the jury once we went to the deliberation room 1 of 2 things, unanimous to

convict, unanimous to summary. if it's a quick turnaround but we are talking about 5 and have weak trial pack multiple witnesses, tons of documents, they are going through it piece by piece because there are 34 counts being called to question. and at the end of the day they are doing the appropriate due diligence. this is a serious case and they need to do the appropriate due diligence to come to the right resolution. when you talk about this type of pressure, the other thing that really complicates things is that in state court you don't get jurisdictions. the jury gets jury instructions here for your federal cases they do, state cases they don't. in new york it's the most frustrating thing. also delays to liberations as you can see the jury asked multiple times for the instructions to be read back to them. it's a frustrating process. hopefully they will change it at some point and let the jurors have the jury instructions to

see thanks along. >> neil: and just to be clear of tom haack in order to get a guilty verdict the jury must be unanimous on each and every count they apply the 2 right? >> rate peer the jury has to reach unanimity and that's not to say they cannot split. there could be some counts where they put in some debate convict. >> neil: anything guilty that was my quote not yours it's got to be unanimous. >> yes. spilling all right think you got so much i appreciate that. so were waiting to hear from a former president, you might address the press coming out of that building he is in there as we speak. don't know for sure how much longer this will go on it could be up to 6:00 pm, about 1 hour and 50 minutes or so. we don't know if that's the plan peer it looks like donald trump is coming out he might address reporters. let's listen. now he's going right back and. again, we are keeping track on that. also keeping track on what he

might say afterwards. also waited to hear that joe biden whenever this is resolved plans to adjust the nation. immediately prompted a question donald trump is fully exonerated not found guilty of anything we'll he still address the nation? we will explore that after this (bell ringing) someone needs to customize and save hundreds with liberty mutual! (inaudible sounds) (elevator doors opening) wait, there's an elevator? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ there are many ways to do things. at old dominion freight line, we do them this way. this way has people who start early. people who care

and inspire each other to do things the way they should be done. this way uses technology (♪) and goes the extra mile (♪) to deliver your promises on-time, every time. this way is why we're the number one national ltl carrier for quality. for us, this way is the right way which is why it's the only way we go.

alright we are just learning now the jury is to be excused at 4:30 pm. 14 minutes from now. it's a little earlier than it could have been. the judge said they could've stayed until 6:00 pm peer have a pretty good idea rebecca joins us now, i didn't want to overread into that. they could've stayed until 6, they are breaking up at 430. what do you think we. >> to me it means they are not that close to it decision. so the judges asking would you like to go to 60 need the extra time in the jury said no, we would rather just go home back rest a bit and go back tomorrow. they must be in the middle overview and the documents rather than close to the and and post to a verdict. i think that could be very good for the former president. i thank the jury seems as if

they really doing their due diligence in reviewing documents and going over some of the testimony they heard in the beginning of the case because it's been a long trial, maybe they forgot. there could be some people that are disagreeing, that's okay too. let's just hope that at the end the jury does conclude that this multiple criminal verdict sheet that is really very confusing to me as unconstitutional, violates the former presidents 6 amendment rights. on hoping they conclude that there is no evidence with which to find donald trump guilty. >> neil: but you also debate than might not be in sync on this. back to be another reason to say lesko a day we'll have a third day of deliberations tomorrow. could that be in play? >> sure. you never really know when a jury asks for some feedback or some read back. you don't know if they just want to confirm what they were thinking or that there are 2 sides or 1 possible outlier

whose disagreeing peer if there's a disagreement or those a confirmation of what they were all thinking before they went into that verdict grim. you don't really know we try to just say we hope the jury is going to do the right thing here and see that there is really no evidence with which to convict the former president. >> neil: alright because a good time to the attorney earlier today who said the line of questioning back the concern with packer did seem to indicate this ultimate meeting at trump tower that would be deemed friendly. his opinion only to the prosecution. you don't concur? >> i don't know that we can make those assumptions. it could be 1 person whose pro prosecution and we can have 11 a part of fence or we have the complete opposite. we could also just to have some of the jurors saying i'm not sure yet what happens here and i just hear this back.

i don't fully remember. >> neil: alright. >> it's a long trial. there's been a lot of also station of what is a legend evidence. it confuses people peer it confuses up and were on the outside looking in imagine sitting there all day. sitting in an unfamiliar place its very intimidating. i'm hoping that the jury is really looking to do the right thing and go through the evidence vary methodically. >> neil: alright well if you're confused rebecca and your top-notch lawyer then i feel perfectly at home being the normal space cadet i am. so rebecca think you will see what this means and whether they can regroup tomorrow and whether it decision is reached on any of this before the weekend. we just don't know. in the meantime we do know president trump -- former president is in that building. the only assume we have from him a few minutes ago was this pair

take a look. >> i want to campaign. >> neil: donald trump saying he was to campaign. he is not able to do that as long as the jury deliberates here so he has to wait to this the whole time. former u.s. defense secretary white house chief of staff former cia director leon good to have you. we wait to hear what the former president trump has to say daily reflections on this every time he is at the courthouse but were also told president biden will say something about this once the jury makes it's decision. dew you think that's a wise idea for joe biden to assert himself in this? >> frankly i thank the better approach is to not speculate at all. this issue is in the hands of the jury right now and i think we ought to allow the jury to make its final decision. with regards to commentary afterwards, you know, i think

again for president of the united states is probably better. on not to comment on jury verdicts, that's usually the approach presidents take, to basically say the judicial system has worked, the jury has arrived at a verdict back that up holes or system of justice in this country and leave it at that. because if you engage in commentary on it that i think particularly if he is convicted it will look like the president is gloating. i thank the president was elected frankly to bring some calm and dignity to the oval office and not engage in that kind of commentary. >> neil: it could be just as curious if done much of his completely exonerated and not found guilty of anything. with the president then say the system works and tip his hat to

his predecessor? >> i think juries make all kinds of verdicts in this country, that's the nature of our judicial system. and i think whether you like it or not the verdict frankly is up to the jury 1 way or the other. >> neil: so that's her lawyerly way of answer does not answer my question peer bloc quebecois. >> i'm not somebody who enjoys commenting or speculating about what the jury is going to do. >> neil: no calculate. to be clear president biden was to come in on this or make and adjust to the nation i think it was billed as that adjust to the nation after the jury verdict is reached i don't know if that's a good idea either way. i guess that's what i was try to ask you. >> and what i'm saying is i thank the better approach is not to comment with regards to the

jury for duke. 1 way or the other. the jury has reached it's decision, you have to respect that decision whatever it is. you want they are, the jury was there, they heard the facts, they made a decision. and think we have to accept that as part of the jury process. but i think it's better for the president at this point to not have to comment 1 way or the other. the public will make up its own mind as to what happened in this case and will decide what impact it has in november. i think it's better left to the american people to decide what is the consequence of this trial. >> neil: got it. you know, 1 of the things that comes up with this is been talked about the american people will decide that ultimately, we do know donald trump remains a slight favorite over joe biden.

if this has hurt and it has a funny way showing it. i think his numbers were -- are stronger that when it started weeks ago. does that surprise you? >> you know, i think we've seen that there are obviously a backlash pack every action to the trials that know only going on but the trials that are supposed to go on in the future as well and that president trump has done a pretty good job of attacking this system and showing himself to be a martyr. i understand that approach and i think it has had some impact particularly with his political base. >> neil: but it's more than his buttock obeys. nearly recent invention and is joe biden you would think would be benefiting more from all of this but he is not khakis losing

key demographic groups 1 after another. that could change it is still early as you reminded me, but almost anyone else would be performing better you would think in this environment then joe biden. are you worried for some members in your party of expressed frustration hacked her at the prospect he could easily be defeated and maybe even walloped in november. what do you think we. >> well neil i'm the kind of individual bat thinks there's a long time between now and the election and almost anything can happen between now and the election. i wouldn't put anything in the bank right now. 1 way or the other. obviously if the president is convicted, that could have an impact. if he is not convicted it could have an impact. but more importantly, this is still going to come down to a choice between whether someone wants to elect trump and his approach to moving backward or whether we are going to elect

biden and move forward. doubts is going to be the choice people will faced. >> neil: while i have viewed the new york times is reporting president brandon is leading ukraine strike with u.s. weapons inside russia. howdy feel about that? >> i think that's the right decision. i think, you know, ukraine needs to get whatever help they can get in defending itself. and i think nato has urged we allow those strikes. france, germany, great britain, canada, finland hacked most of our allies i think it's important for the united states to provide a unified approach that allows the ukrainians to strike at those targets. >> i don't know where this goes, he always here russia is back having the full advantage here

and that some nato members are try to follow this and the separate report the financial times nato has just 5% of the air defense needed to protect its eastern flank. is the important 1 because as the russian pride. i wonder if you're just worried about that, the support for this is waning, support for nato defending itself and having enough resources to defend itself is waning. >> well let's take each of those 1 at a time. i think number 1 united states and nato know ukraine is not just fighting to protect its democracy but it's fighting to protect our democracies as well. therefore i think it's very clear that under no circumstances can russia president vladimir putin be allowed to succeed in this effort. we have to do everything necessary to make sure we stop food and -- russia president vladimir putin period.

when it comes to air defenses i think frankly that is concerned even in ukraine even what i would do now is develop an air defense system in ukraine that replicates once happening in israel. we were able to take down over 90% of 300 missiles that were fired into israel. we want to be able to take that same capability and use it in ukraine and also use it with europe as well. >> neil: finally back to president biden, i did mention and i know -- many in your party are worried the president is showing his age and that he doesn't seem to be that comfortable in a public forum either handling a press conference making announcements and relying on notecards and the like. does it worry you that he might not be up to the job and he is getting old pretty fast and it's showing. >> well like i have heard the critics and obviously we will hear from the republican side of

the campaign, but the reality is that biden continues to show that he is up to the job. he certainly showed it at the state of the union adjust. >> neil: to thank those one-off though? >> no i don't think it's a one-off. i have talked with joe bunn and i think he has more than enough faculties to be able to exercise the job of being president of the united states. that is really what counts. i think we will sea in the debate, i thank the debates will tell us a lot about joe biden's capability to be able to confront trump and trump's ability whether or not to use substance or polling tactics in the debate. we learn a lot by these debates as to who has the best approach in terms of substance. >> neil: can be very telling that could prove a lot.

thank you so much. we will take a quick break i want to let you know don't trump is expected to say something when he leaves a court house i could be any minute. a bad day for the markets. a rough past couple weeks, nothing to do with going on in that court house. some companies not do nearly as well as we thought they would, after this left over? —yeah. oh, absolutely. (inner monologue) my kids don't know what they want. you know who knows what she wants? me! i want a massage, in amalfi, from someone named giancarlo. and i didn't live in that shoebox for years. not just— with empower, we get all of our financial questions answered. so you don't have to worry. i guess i'll get the caviar... just kidding. join 18 million americans and take control of your financial future with a real time dashboard and real live conversations. empower. what's next. it's time. yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food.

everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪ ava: i was just feeling sick. and it was the worst day. mom was crying. i was sad. colton: i was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma. brett: once we got the first initial hit, it was just straight tears, sickness in your stomach, just don't want to get up out of bed. joe: there's always that saying, well, you've got to look on the bright side of things. tell me what the bright side of childhood cancer is. lakesha: it's a long road. it's hard. but saint jude has gotten us through it.

narrator: saint jude children's research hospital works day after day to find cures and save the lives of children with cancer and other life-threatening diseases. thanks to generous donors like you, families never receive a bill from saint jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food, so they can focus on helping their child live. ashley: without all of those donations, saint jude would not be able to do all of the exceptional work that they do. narrator: for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the life-saving research and treatment these kids need. tiffany: no matter if it's a big business or just the grandmother that donates once a month, they are changing people's lives. and that's a big deal. narrator: join with your debit or credit card right now, and we'll send you this saint jude t-shirt that you can proudly wear to show your support. nicole: our family is forever grateful for donations

big and small because it's completely changed our lives and it's given us a second chance. elizabeth stewart: saint jude's not going to stop until every single kid gets that chance to walk out of the doors of this hospital cancer-free. narrator: please, don't wait. call, go online, or scan the qr code below right now. [music playing] after deliberating for a little over 11 hours card still no decision in the trump posh many case. we expect a here from the former president momentarily. after this

but with stearns & foster® that's only part of the story. we handcraft every stearns & foster® using the finest materials, like indulgent memory foam, and ultra-conforming intellicoils®, for a beautiful mattress, and indescribable comfort. every single night. during our memorial day sale, bring home incredible comfort with savings up to $800 on select adjustable mattress sets. stearns & foster® what comfort should be learn more at stearnsandfoster.com >> neil: alright, no jury decision yet after 2 days and 11 hours meeting discussing and passing notes getting the judge to explain things picked the jurors have not made up their minds. doesn't mean anything there's a

lot to digest and allowed to weigh in on. a lot of people think tomorrow they resume deliberations a copy pushed faster because of the approaching weekend but not everyone buys that. it such a momentous moment no 1 will necessarily be in a rush. but we are waiting on that and also waiting to get to the former president who as usual when he leaves talks with reporters there. must go to jonathan hanh who will has been studying what will happen in the event certain things happen in that courthouse at the jury rules on a variety of thanks. jonathan explain. >> well, neil if there is a guilty verdict, we've been looking at the possibilities there. of the former president, "'s range from essentially nothing with no penalties at all cactus pinning what wood amount to the rest of his life behind bars, a sentence that could begin at new york's at aureus rikers island prison. realistically, another of those extreme options seems likely

carper's students complete discharge would be unusual after a felony conviction, as would any lengthy prison term given trump has no prior criminal record and the private question here is a nonviolent 1, but the judge could impose a relatively short prison sentence of a matter of months, or even a split sentence including some time behind bars and 3 or more a verdict. to weight years of probation or 3 years of and see what it is. the reed backs from the judge conditional discharge. probation also a possibility as this morning indicated they were interested in some testimony and a stand-alone sentence as it is a conditional discharge. wanted to know what the law was again and the judge did read it probation would involve regular check ins with the new york city probation department and back to them here i guess we whatever conditions the judge will find out any moment what the result is here. >> neil: if you're just tuning chooses. those could include travel restrictions which would clearly have an impact on trump's in we've gotten word the jury ability to campaign. has reached a verdict and -- in the trump posh many case whether if the judge decided the it involves addressing all 34 supervising nature of probation counts, whether any work is not necessary than he could combined, no idea. simply set a conditional but francine of course made discharge. it could make him -- bottom-line there was that misinterpretation of them stopping things early, they could've gone right until

that if there is a guilty verdict there we'll be a huge amount of pressure on judge 6:00 pm. may be finishing up just before 430 they were indeed finished, what you make of it? marchand who will have a lot of leeway in deciding trump's >> its early interesting meal. descendents. it's also worth noting neil and i've said all along i thought a he sentence the judge chooses might end up being state until fast verdict was probably some they not good for the former president and the law you went after the inevitable appeal against a conviction and of on -- longer a want on the longer it was just they couldn't course everything i've said is reach a verdict, it was a hung completely mouton must the jury jury. thank that they reached a does deliver a guilty verdict. were waiting longer for that is verdict is probably not code for seems neil. the former president but it's >> wear my friend thank you very much. really good to know what a jury jonathan hunt following that. back with rebecca. we'll do in a case like this where there is so much unconstitutional thumb on the i will begin with you and get scale by the judge and bringing you're take on this going into a charges by district attorney third day. that don't make any legal or a lot of people were expecting judicial sense. if a decision were to be reached but you never know what it at could be as soon as friday. juries going to do when i had a case. >> neil: we can read all sorts of thanks into the relative the for no other reason that being before we can. quick nature of this rebecca, what do you make of that? that was sort of the consensus that built up, if it were an >> well, neil juries do like early verdict, it would be damaging to the defense. returning verdicts on friday because it gives them a chance i don't know if that always

to go into the weekend without applies but you're thoughts? having trial hanging over their >> le, there is a lot of time head. at the gets interesting they chose to dismiss themselves today about 90 minutes before between the beginning of this the time the judge said they trial and now for jurors to make could go to if they wanted. decisions. they also had almost 1 week off. i wonder whether the jury is getting sick of each other and it suggests to me although it's i'm vary strongly hoping the like reading tea leaves, but it jury saw through the smoke and suggests to me there is mirrors that the prosecution put potentially some bad feeling in the jury room which some of forth that of course the jury doesn't understand the these questions and the jury presidents sixth amendments charge being read back suggests there are some holdouts, some people on the jury room don't rates were severely and clearly violated in this case. agree with each other. >> neil: hold on there. that if we do have a verdict that is guilty, i would expect apparently we artie have a bird that the defensive team would exactly don't know what it is, immediately make an immediate appeal to the supreme court for we know we've been waiting to hear from donald trump but an automatic stay just on averted has been reached. constitutional violations that have occurred in this courtroom. rebecca rose was 1, what do you we will see what's happening now think of that? >> i'm absolutely shocked. but it also does make me think that the jury came to some the trees said they were leaving at 4:30 pm and now they have a conclusions over the course of time back that they were dismissed over that long weekend verdict. maybe we got the information

and when they came back and wrong, negative said they were ready to discuss something with heard the jury instructions, the judge at 4:30 pm. they all will -- almost made up it is for 39:00 pm and there is their mind by that point. this is a very short amount of time for 34 count felony indictment. >> neil: i want to go to andy mccarthy right now. for those of you just tuning in the jury in manhattan has reached a verdict. as we know he was charged with falsifying business records related to 2016 paid to porn star stormy daniels. but andy, they've come to a conclusion there's a verdict on this. we don't know what it is but it was fairly quick. what do you make of it? >> i have to say neil i thought it would be a quick verdict and a conviction, i thought it would be yesterday so i don't think it's good for the president. the way i look at this case i hope i'm wrong, but it seems to me that what likely happened is they were hung up on something

and late in the day they obviously resolved whatever tension or disagreement there was and now we are on the precipice of a decision. >> neil: the 1 other thing i would say is. >> there's been a lot of talk about how it's 34 counts it may take a lot of time to work through but really this is 1 count multiplied 34 times. in theory if you could decide on 1 falsification of business records count you could decide the whole case which should not have taken all that long. >> neil: we are joined by shannon breen we know the jury has reached a verdict in the case of donald trump facing 34 felony counts falsifying business records you're familiar with the backdrop for all this. they had said shortly after 4:3r so ago the jury requested a half

an hour to fill out the forms. what does that mean shannon? >> there is always a bit of a processor in getting everyone back into the courtroom and making sure the forms are done correctly. remember what we could be looking at is the jury coming back and saying we're deadlocked. it's a possible you get a hold out somewhere. and it's possible that if there is a to centre or 2 or more that this judge could do what we've talked about repeatedly, some the back which is what is known as an allen charge to say to them you have a duty as the jury to go back over evidence to work together and come to some sort of a conclusion. it's possible we get something from the jury that since this right back to the jury. we heard they were going to break up at 4:30 pm but now with news like this we're just anybody waiting we are told that

donald trump has been smiling just before the news don't know you read into that curious where do you think this goes. when it started there is some confusion with looking for a reread of testimony backpacker cart michael cohen and his meeting at the trump tower. so it could have been a lone holdout or several jurors who wanted clarification on that matter. what do you read into that? it's all we have to go on for the time being. and again a couple different notes that really focused on getting the details of what the jurors should be considering. what do you think? >> andy can you hear us? >> as well -- >> neil: go ahead sorry.

>> andy dew want to take that? >> i don't know that we have that much reason to thank there was all that much dissension. 1 of the thanks we've discussed during the day was the early notes seem to indicate that they were probing the way the prosecution asked the jury see the haze which was really was there this conspiracy to influence the outcome of the 2016 election? i thought if early notes had been directed toward the documents he might make an argument that they were looking more narrowly at the charges. but once they started to look at the 2015 trump tower meeting which is really the start point of -- start point of what they argued was this big conspiracy makes you think the jury who is willing and open to by the prosecution narrative about the case. >> or was it? i guess on that point shannon wouldn't it be just as likely may be the judge doshi got to reconcile these differences, get

back in there that it's unlikely he would do so so quickly if they came back and said we can't reach a decision on this, normally he would urge them to go back and give this a little bit of time. the fact that he didn't, does that mean andy is onto something? >> and remember there was such a large portion of the jury instruction read that to them that they asked for it would've been a lot more helpful for us to know what section they were hung in on. but the fact it was some 29 pages read to them it covered all kinds of things about intent and the language and accomplice in all these different thanks so we don't know what it was that they were trying to get to as the critical point of whatever their disagreement was. we do know they asked about those meetings about pecker versus coin and different parts of the testimony but will it we also know is what was right back as we have said both sides could claim some kind of victory that it was good for them and what

the jury heard a second time but the fact they have had weeks and weeks of this, only had 1 set of questions essentially, they wanted testimony and wanted jury instructions it suggests to us when they went into the room yesterday and for the first time were freely able to talk about this, there was really only this 1 point of contention that they wanted to get through before they came back to some sort of decision today because he didn't know if it's a one-time thing or if there is 1 juror that wants to hear it are attend that wants to hear that stuff back. will they have other notes for us. the ones i have notes, the massive rereading of jury instructions does not give us a lot of a solid clue about exactly what they were looking for to get to whatever decision they were at now. >> neil: alright so were waiting to hear from the jury in that verdict may be could explain the mechanics we are waiting on as we speak. >> yeah, sure. what happens is evidently they tell them they reached a verdict.

i would doubt they are going to come out and indicate they have anything other than that they reached a disposition in the case. they're not going to come out and say they're at a point where they can't resolve it. that is especially the case i think if they asked for additional time to fill out the jury verdict. we don't know what the verdict form looks like which should be a real point of contention because it should be a public document. and again 1 of the things i've been concerned about since the beginning 1 of the reasons i thought there would be a conviction is i believe the judge's instructions like the way he is tried the case or presided over the case were geared toward that result and if you got a quick result it would more likely be what it would be. i would add to that we would really like to see the verdict sheet because it seems to me on 12 people have never resolved anything together go into a room and have to resolve something in court for the first time, they need a structure to guide their

destruction -- discussions. sometimes in the verdict sheet it can provide that structure. ethic it's interesting they say we've reached a verdict but we want to fill at the verdict sheet. the other thing is seems to me the sensible way to solve this case is you convict on 34 count or acquit on 34 counts. what bright has done here is taken 1 thing and carted into 34. a shouldn't take vary long to fill that out if they have different resolutions of different charges. that would be vary strange to me >> neil: alright shannon i'll let you take it from me is it fair to say that's what we will get? the cult he or not verdict, how will it play out? that's a lot of counts to go through. >> it is. it will be interesting to see who the fourth person is they have elected among this repair we know it includes taught what attorneys it doesn't necessarily mean the jurors will look to them and say 1 of you is the 4

persons. we have to see all the mechanics of what has gone on and who they decided to guide them through this process. and where they have gotten to this point here thursday afternoon at about 11 hours into this. and another thing andy and i and many of us have discussed is of course the fact that judge at the last-minute injury instructions gives them options for what the underlying crime is that they can attach to this what would've been expired misdemeanors beyond the statute of limitations such that they could choose among multiple things and he told them they didn't have to be unanimous on the underlying issue which is the linchpin in the entire case and if we do get a verdict and we get something from the jury and as andy has said we have been seen with the official form has be -- we'll be will we ever have an indication from the use jurors if they convict what it was they felt was the underlying crime and how many of them thought it was witch crime. so we have some new questions. will obviously wait to see whether any of these jurors speak out today if it wraps up

this case we think we have more questions than answers as the minutes are taking down -- ticking down to get those answers. >> neil: i was curious, this is open to either 1 of you, obviously if a guilty verdict comes across 1 or several times that it's up to the judge and how he handles that in terms of sentencing if it came to that. we are far from that, we don't know, but you're thoughts? >> the right thing to do in this instance neil would be to treat this like you would treat other cases in this sense. this is a nonviolent crime. president trump has no criminal record. this should be and no prison type sentence no matter how it comes out. he should be continued on the conditions that he is already under. he is obviously going to file a notice of appeal with hughes convicted which means this won't be resolved and a final way

until sometime next year if it's that early and what will happen is sentencing we'll be postponed from now until the usual time is about 3 months. this case obviously with the presidential election it adds a layer of publications. but i thank the judge would just continue him on release until a control date sentenced 3 months from now. >> neil: alright shannon i'll let you take it from here but again i want to let you know the verdict has been reached in this donald trump hush money case. you have a lot to digest it vary quickly to you folks. >> we do. alright neil thank you very much. andy alice start by bringing you in as our first official asked as we are on verdict watch. teasingly get a verdict? or do you think maybe they come back and say -- they were about to leave, we get everything thirdhand but we don't know exactly what the jury decided but there was an indication it

would be a 4:30 pm dismissal and then it's like wait a minute everyone starts running, it's a verdict. does that mean it has to be acquittal or conviction? or can we heard from them, we have reached an impasse? >> i think if they say verdict. >> you think we have a verdict, okay. >> the other thing is it's too early to say we can't decide. just go to deliberating yesterday and were on the verge of coming back tomorrow. so it seems like it would be pointless to come back to the judge at this point and say we don't think we can resolve it because the judge would say its too early to say you can't resolve it. virtually just started less than 12 hours of deliberation, maybe 12 hours total. i think if they say verdict that means they have on. and maybe i am a little biased in that regard because i convince myself it would be quick but i think if they said verdict, there is a verdict. >> okay so we will figure out

who the fourth person's capitalist -- know some of what the jury has walk-through and decided, some of this if there is a conviction we won't know unless some of these jurors decides to talk and tell us where they found the underlying crime if they do convict and what it was they will agree on what it was and how much of this was pegged to federal election law which means we didn't have testimony from an expert witness here about that. whether it was tax law which we didn't hear much about in the trial or whether it was the falsification of documents. in addition to the ones that are the misdemeanors elevated to felonies. dew you thank a juror talks we will we ever know what happened in the jury room? >> i bet there are jurors on those jury who were dying to talk. i'd be very surprised -- and look that would be a new group of people write involved in something that was this historic. he would get some of them who wanted to speak. the fact that some of them will want to speak will cause others to want to speak. so, i think we will find 1 or 2

at least 2 will tell us what went on. and i think we will also find out how much of it was driven by what the judge instructed them and that they double down on this morning by hearing so much of it again i really thank the most important thing that happened in this case was the jury instructions because nothing seemed to be set in stone or final in terms of what the charges even more until the judge gave them the instructions maybe you could say the summations and particularly the prosecution summation was at least a statement of when they finally planted their feet and say this is what's charged. but that only happen after the parties knew what the judge was going to charge the jury. they knew what the charge was last thursday. >> rate they had those. >> soy don't think there was of the about this case until you got the end of that cherry

conference where they come up with what the charge is going to be. and it was as a result of that that we found out and be summations where the prosecution is going andy to our surprise the jury didn't even necessarily have to be anonymously in agreement about some of the most important thanks in the case. >> so to your mind if they come back with a conviction as we wait we have no idea at this point it would say they believe -- we know there is plenty of testimony and by his own admission and pleas he had made that he had lied about a number of thanks to a number of people and bodies and entities. but the judge had told them you can disregard some of the altogether if you feel there's no could a building but you can also take portions of what you believe that person said was also true. as much as the prosecution wanted to say its not solely about cohen we have other

testimony and other people and corroborating evidence. for the jury you got to thank if they were willing to believe at least part of >> so i think there is a one or two interpretations. either that one, that they actually decided to credit cohen's testimony in important ways. or we have to conclude that this prosecution was successful in what i think they tried to do -- i thought this was smoke and mirrors, frankly, but it might have worked. that they tried to project the idea that there were mountains of corroboration's -- corroboration for cohen's testimony. now it seems to me that there are parts of this testimony that are essential, like former president trump's knowledge of how they were going to structure the payments to cohen, that depend entirely on cohen's testimony, and that they shouldn't be able to convict on the basis of because under new york law, you can't convict

when an accomplished has not been corroborated, right? but i think the prosecutors may have been able to convince the jury that between the documents, and especially the way that cohen's testimony echoed pecker's testimony in a number of ways, that may have made the jury think that there actually was enough corroboration that they could credit cohen in key places. >> okay, so we want to bring in trey gowdy, who is joining us, as well. a state and federal prosecutor, as well. you have seen many juries, many trials. what does it say to you? we thought they were leaving for the day, then we get word that there is a verdict. what does that telegraph, if anything, to you? >> if i were the prosecution, i would feel better than if i was the defense attorney. i just -- i think the speed with which this happened, there were a couple of holdouts initially