good to be with you, i'm katy tur. imagine waking up knowing you

are in charge of history, a decision you will make will be taught in schools, written down in history books, and then that decision awaits you today. imagine how heavy it would feel to get out of bed this morning. it's a lot. and yet that is what 12 men and women are doing right now, deciding if they believe the former president of the united states, donald trump, committed a crime, potentially multiple felonies for as the manhattan district attorney's office argues corruptly trying to interfere with an election. engaging in a so-called scheme that prosecutors say could have been what got him elected. the prosecution has told the jury they think this is a simple case, that in the weeks before the 2016 election during the fallout from the access hollywood tape, donald trump caused michael cohen to buy and bury the story of an affair with an adult film star, to hide it

from you, the voters. they call that election interference, and say this case has so much evidence, it is overwhelmingly clear donald trump is guilty. they even argue they have two smoking guns. we'll show them to you in a moment. the defense, meanwhile, argues it is just the opposite, that the prosecution has no direct evidence donald trump knew anything about the payment to stormy daniels, that if there was a scheme, it was michael cohen and michael cohen's alone. you deserve more, the defense argues. you can't send the former president to prison based on the words of a liar like michael cohen, and while that plea from the defense drew an angry rebuke and a curative instruction to the jury from the judge, you have to wonder if the spirit of that comment lingered with the jury. that it is their decision to make donald trump the first president to ever be charged

with a crime. and maybe found guilty. their decision that could change the course of history. so how are they dealing with that right now, three and a half hours or so into their deliberation. what questions are going to come up? in fact, they just rang the bell. they might have a question right now. we're going to get into this because something could be happening. joining us now from outside of the new york city courthouse, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard. former assistant district attorney in manhattan and msnbc legal analyst, catherine christian, and former fbi general counsel and former member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election, andrew weissmann. look at that. saved by the bell, if you will, vaughn hillyard. what do we know? >> reporter: to be clear, there is no distinction between a bell that goes into the courtroom for a verdict versus the bell that

goes into the courtroom being rung over a note coming from the jury who is currently deliberating. so we do not know at this point in time. hopefully within a matter of minutes it is made clear. now, of course we should expect notes to be sent from the jury. this would be in very short order. only three and a half hours of deliberation so far. now, earlier today when they entered into the deliberation room, they were given a laptop that has the entirety of the evidence, every single exhibit, text message, phone call that was entered into the record. the entire testimony provided by those 22 witnesses. they've got it on their laptop, they can send a note for clarity to the evidence. they can send a note to the judge to have judge merchan re-read parts of the jury instruction that he delivered over the course of the first hour this morning, particularly as it pertains to what laws they are determining whether donald trump is guilty over. because the jury instructions, again, took over an hour to read this morning, they do not have a physical copy of that in that room themselves here. they worked over the course of

the lunch period. and we should also note that donald trump is currently inside of the courthouse. he is currently in another side room where he has been posting on social media, a campaign has sent out a fundraising e-mail on his behalf that said in part, i could be in jail tomorrow. they're in an all out political war against us. the stakes are incredibly high, and every time we should expect a ring in the courtroom could be a potential verdict from the jury. >> katherine and andrew, we don't know if it's a verdict, if it's a question. given that the jury instructions were a little bit over an hour, hundreds of pages of jury instructions, is it safe to guess that it's probably a question this quickly into the deliberations. it's just three and a half hours. >> it could be a question, and the way the judge handles it, it's very cumbersome, he has to make the note, a court exhibit,

has to have both parties there, including the defendant, read it into the record, have the jurors come in, read it in again into the record, and make sure that it's read accurately, and then find out. so it could be a question. or it could be a verdict. >> so the types of questions that you can anticipate. obviously it could be a verdict, but the types of questions could be a question of law that they want to have greater explanation in which case, as catherine said, one thing that the judge will do after reading it into the record and ask the parties to address it so that he can hear what they think the answer should be. the other thing it could be, in addition to and understand the law is they want to have a read back, that is they want to hear read back certain testimony, so, for instance, can you please read back the testimony from david pecker on x topic, at

which point the parties meet, they try and come up with a consensus as to what that readback would be. if there's a disagreement, the judge decides it. then the jury comes out and they read it back to the jury. >> the d.a.'s team has just walked in. we got this note about a bell ringing. again, could be verdict, could be a question. just a couple of minutes ago. how quickly do you think this process is going to start going? >> it also depends. if they want read back, they have to get the court reporter in there. >> how quickly will we know if it's a question or verdict. >> as soon as all the parties are there. we have a note, before i do anything, make it a court exhibit, and then he will read it. >> all right. so we're going to find out any second now. i'm so fascinated by what it must be like. this is what i woke up thinking this morning. it's a big day in the news business, a big day for the this country. what a giant day it is for these 12 jurors. >> so, you know, yesterday before deliberations, people were saying, oh, what is the

jury thinking, what do you think they're thinking? having been on a jury, they don't know what they're thinking because they have not talked about the case until they go in the room, finally, to be told they can deliberate, which only happened today after they were instructed on the law. so that's when they first found out what everyone was thinking. >> so you don't think they actually had an idea of where they were leaning on this case? >> only individually. they would have no idea. there was no sense of where do you think the jury is, if you asked each of the 12 jurors, they would be like i know what i might be thinking, but they would have no sense of where the jury is at this point. >> they got the case 3 1/2 hours ago, they go behind closed doors, start talking to one another, get of sense of where they are. they spent five weeks together. they probably know a little bit about each one of their personal lives. they weren't allowed to talk about the case. what happens first? >> you know, will the jury foreperson decide he or she is

going to be the leader, and in new york, the person is jury number one. it's not an election. >> do they take a straw poll? >> it depends. i've always been dinged. no one wanted to put me on a jury. it depends on the 12 people. >> typically it is a straw poll. they just get a sense. it would be common to have questions about the law, and instructions. so that's a pretty typical kind of question you get, and then the other would be, as i said, would be some sort of read back. remember, it's a long trial, so when they're being told think back to what david pecker said or hope hicks said, you can imagine someone saying, i know it's in my notice, let's get a read back. >> we have great news. joining us now is msnbc chief legal correspondent and anchor "the beat," ari melber, the

prosecution wants to argue it's a simple case. donald trump was trying to cause michael cohen to hide a payment to an adult film star to affect the election, to hide things from the voters, at the same time, their summation, and i saw the beginning and the end of it was five hours long. it was very complicated and mostly easy to follow. there were times it got kind of weedy. how difficult is a case like this for a jury, and is it made easier or harder having two lawyers on the jury? >> it's interesting. we have talked about this. lawyers on the jury does change the tenor because it's human nature for people to kind of go, oh, well, what do you guys think, but if they're responsible and follow the rules, they're supposed to, of course, only find facts and deal with the evidence. not give some sort of, like, random legal advice to the jury, you know what i mean. >> but does the jury look to them and say, you understand how to read the law, you're more

schooled in this than i am, can you take a leadership role to try and help us understand what's going on. >> that could happen. what's so fascinating, 3 1/2 hours into the deliberations, we find out something. we don't know what we're about to find out. >> we don't know if it's a note. it could be a ringing of the bell. it could be a question. it could be a verdict. >> or more. we're waiting on that. here we are 3 1/2 hours in. they have had time to digest what you described, katy, lengthy arguments yesterday, as well as the jury instructions this morning, and so we were all following and reading those instructions and trying to figure out, okay, where did it all land. they looked fairly straightforward to me, and the instructions are, of course, designed to give everyone guidance on how to have these conversations that they have now been having for about and a half hours. >> merchan has taken the bench. we have color on what the ring sounds like, a very old fashioned telephone. donald trump is standing there,

holding papers. we're going to find out more in a moment. it's a note from the jury, according to judge merchan. so they have a note from the jury, and they are going to potentially if it's a question, have judge merchan re-read back the jury instructions. >> just to be clear, if it's a note for amplification on the law or a note for witness testimony, either way, it's going to take some time. because if it is a question of law, he does need to hear from the parties about what they think should be said, and if it's -- the thing that takes even more time is if it's a read back, figuring out exactly what needs to be read back is something where the parties need to do to figure out exactly what that is. that takes time to answer the question. >> the note was sent at 2:56 p.m., just before we came on the air.

there are four requests from the jury, catherine. four requests. >> it could be requests for read back, requests to, you know, tell us again what you meant by intentionally. it could be an assortment of things. four requests, you know -- >> hold on, before you have to guess, i can fill us in. it reads, we the jury request david pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with donald trump while pecker was in the investor meeting. they also want pecker and cohen's testimony about the trump tower meeting and pecker's testimony about his not finalizing the transfer of mcdougal's life rights to donald trump. >> yeah, this is interesting, and let's get into it. we now have the first clues about what they're discussing, and we want to be as careful as possible. the fact that they're asking about something may or may not be what it looks like at first impression. for example, katy, a meeting that the prosecution brought up

because they say it's bad for trump. the fact that the jury is discussing it doesn't mean they agree with the prosecution that it's bad for trump, but these are definitely key questions about reviewing evidence, testimonial or otherwise, regarding the tabloid plot. so we have mr. pecker who of course was the first star witness, ran the inquirer, the ami chief, our prosecutors can speak to this as well because that's where they argue the catch and kill plot was developed, so the d.a.'s team has argued that that trump tower meeting was key, and michael cohen's testimony about that meeting is, again, two different ways to look at what was alleged to be the beginning of that plot. >> one thing i just wanted to say. i mean, i totally agree with what ari is saying is that i caution people to not tea leaf, read too much. i have seen notes which you think are really good for one

set or the other. and it's the opposite. the one thing i do think is good for potentially for the state here is asking to have michael cohen's testimony read back. david pecker is not surprising because there was not a lot of attack by the defense on david pecker, so you can understand why that as the first witness is something they need to have their memories sort of refreshed about exactly what he said. but the fact that they are asking for michael cohen after the onslaught he took is interesting because that means that there isn't sort of unanimity. we are not going to focus on what he said. we do not believe him. it is not useful. it is to me that has to be viewed as at least potentially a good sign. yes, he may need corroboration. >> they're also asking for pecker. doesn't that indicate they want to see how the two stories align? >> absolutely. and it really makes sense.

i mean, nobody is thinking, there's no way that a jury is going to say, oh, just because michael cohen said it, we're going to take it to the bank and without any corroboration. so this makes total sense. and david pecker i really do think because he was not really attacked by the defense, it makes sense that they would be, you know what, that's the first witness. let's hear what he had to say again. >> they have the laptop, they have all of the evidence, but they don't have testimony. why don't they have testimony? >> that has to be read back. that is the court reporter coming into the courtroom and literally reading it back. as ari said, it's important for the prosecution they're going back to that trump tower meeting where the conspiracy, the alleged conspiracy was hatched, where the catch and kill was hatched. that means they're focusing. they have just started right out. and also, what did michael cohen say about that meeting. they have asked for his testimony. >> essentially they're starting at the beginning as well. they're not going to the end of it.

when was this initial meeting had, what was said at the initial meeting. >> i would put it like this. this is what's interesting, we're all processing it live. i'm not going to say this is great for the prosecution yet. but i will definitely say it's not bad. by which i mean they're looking at the theory of the case. you know what would be bad, if they were asking about comparing michael cohen's description of this now much discussed call to the body guard to something else. if they were asking about places where the trump folks attacked. these are these are questions that at least show the jury has begun and this has come out of the first three and a half hours of discussion and deliberation, they have begun by saying, what happened at trump tower, what was the tabloid plot and was it part of an election crime potentially? >> can i just tell the viewers what's going to happen now? because there will be delay, and what happens is the prosecution and the defense now are taking this note and figuring out

respectively what pages and by page and line responds to this. so they are going through everything david pecker said to figure out what it is, then they confer with each other. there will always be a disagreement about exactly what it is, and then those disagreements are brought up to the judge who decides what exactly is responsive and then there is the read back. so there will be some time delay now. >> and can i ask a question, we're going to be doing this for a while. but a question for catherine is specifically, in these kinds of courtrooms that you have been in in new york court, how long would you expect this read back to be based on what andrew said? >> the judge said we're going to end today at 4:30. i'm wondering if he'll tell the jury, you know what, if we do this today, it night take us past 4:30, and therefore we'll do it tomorrow. he has promised them 4:30. they may have plans.

>> he said 4:30, we can reassess and see where you are. >> exactly. as andrew said, there's usually not an agreement between both sides. no, they don't want that part of the testimony, they want this. >> i think it's interesting, when we're talking about the trump tower meeting and the deal with david pecker and michael cohen and donald trump, the defense team tried to paint this as standard operating procedure for any candidate or campaign in dealing with a journalist, and saying that what ami was doing, catching and killing stories was what all of us as journalists do when we are dealing with a campaign. it's normal for a candidate to spin. a campaign is a conspiracy between a candidate and another person to get them elected. they tried to trot out rahm emanuel and others to say this was fine. do you think that question is potentially going to come up with these jurors? i mean, we know that that is not standard operating procedure. we know that that is way beyond the bound of journalism. it's not what a traditional or a

news outlet or journalist does, but the jurors might not know that. >> so the defense is going to very much look at the precise wording of the note, and they will be arguing for as much of the defense case coming in as responsive, and the judge has to make that decision. in this case, you can imagine the state will say, no, that is not about what happened at the meeting. that is about how they should be thinking about the meeting, and so there will be -- that is exactly why there will be some delays here. one thing to katherine's point about sort of how the judge could proceed is because this -- the judge could say if i want to get you out of here at a certain hour, i'll take the first one, and we'll get you a response to that and so that it sort of doesn't all happen at once. >> i would add to that. as we were discussing and katy pointed out, the comparison here. the jury is interested in getting more information about

the infamous trump tower meeting, asking for david pecker's description of it and michael cohen's, and one can reasonably infer they may compare that. the jury instructions urge them to do that, look at testimony, not notes, to use their common sense and recollection. the other piece we have talked a little less about what is request number two, asking for david pecker's testimony about the life rights for karen mcdougal, former playboy model linked to donald trump who did not testify in this trial but who again was one of these people as katy mentioned, the traditional media operations where you try to find out information and publish it, online or on the tv or broadcast or some other format, a newspaper, tabloid. the idea is you're in the business of publishing, and here with both mcdougal, and the trump tower meeting, which involves this, a very different approach where, again, according to pecker and other testimony, they were buying things as a cutout, as a kind of a secret

off the books operation allegedly for the trump campaign to not publish. >> not to publish. but instead to bury and keep quiet. i want to bring in vaughn hillyard, i know you have a little bit more information about what is being read back, the context? >> reporter: right, one of those discrepancy there, where it caught my attention yesterday inside of the courtroom, while listening to todd blanche present closing arguments, was when he was talking about the august 2015 trump tower meeting, he told the jurors that there was no talk of any catch and kill scheme in that meeting suggesting it couldn't be a conspiracy, and he repeated that a couple of times, and, again, you know, this is what the jurors are doing. they're going back to past testimony, david pecker talked about this, under questioning from the prosecution on april 23rd. more than a month ago. i went back to the notes, and what he said was he would notify michael cohen and he would be able to kill it, saying that he would be the eyes and ears.

again, there's a little distinction there where there's no explicit testimony about a catch and kill scheme, but that he would notify michael cohen so michael cohen would be able to kill the story, and so that's kind of one of those distinctions that will come up in the testimony upon reading back. >> what's interesting is we're getting this from the courtroom, david pecker's testimony, in order to corroborate, stein glass had pecker describe the setting, the new jersey bedminster meeting. it's proof that it was accurate and described the decor of the building and the way the woman came in to tell donald trump that he was on the line. >> it makes david pecker more credible because he remembered those details, and josh steinglass rebutted in his summation, this wasn't a catch and kill meeting saying just because they didn't use the word catch and kill, that doesn't mean that that wasn't what the focus of the trump tower meeting

was. >> ari. >> i think these are interesting questions for the prosecution, they go to the origin of this. and another thing we have talked about in covering this trial, not to second guess everything. it's far easier to watch a trial than litigate one, but they began with pecker, cohen hit turbulence. we had a lot of discussions about that approach. i think it's also a positive, it's early going, but a positive sign that at least the jury is following that chronology, starting with the first witness and cohen, the last witness. another way to say this. they have asked for read back of testimony by the prosecution's first and last witness. >> can we talk about blanche yesterday and the rebuke that he got from the judge. i think it's worth lingering on that. i do wonder, he said to them, you can't put donald trump in jail based on the words of

michael cohen, who he called a liar, the gloat, the greatest liar of all time. the judge was furious about that. called it outrageous, said it couldn't possibly be an accident. what we were discussing about todd blanche, they agreed of course it wasn't an accident. how does a sentiment like that, even though they are not in charge of putting him in jail, and juan merchan came in and said i'm in charge of that, and maybe jail time is not on the table for an offense like this, how does that potentially linger with the jury? this is a novel case. it's tals a novembuary case against the former president of the united states, one whose supporters get very angry. >> i'll take a crack at that. i would disagree that it's a novel case other than it's a novel case because of the defendant. i don't think it's that unusual, and catherine can speak to it more in terms of the sort of bread and butter, false business records. i think getting to the substance

of your question, which is i have always been concerned that a jury is going to hold the state to a higher standard because of who the defendant is. the way you opened about a juror waking up and thinking about what this means, that it will weigh on them more than just a normal criminal case. i'm not saying it should. i'm just saying -- >> but of course it does. the times we're living in, who that person is, it naturally will. >> even if it weren't a donald trump larger than life controversial figure, just any former president could weigh on you. that is what makes what todd blanche did particularly pernicious. because it sort of doubles down on that. it's always improper to talk about sentencing at the guilt phase. everybody knows that. i mean, defense lawyer, prosecutor, everybody knows it. you cannot do it. and there was no actual defense

from todd when the judge said, you know, i think this is intentional, and what do you have to say, todd blanche did not say it was inadvertent and clearly in my view, it's just not possible for that to be the case. the judge did everything he possibly could to sort of unring that bell, but, you know, you can't un-ring a bell. >> what about the violence part of this, ari? and the prosecution brought this up. they tried to get this into their summation. the defense argued it was prejudicial. when donald trump says something, when he goes after somebody, his supporters get really angry, and they go after that person online, sometimes they doks that person, threaten them. it happens to republicans as well. look what happened to lindsey graham in the airport after january 6th and him saying that donald trump, you know, was

responsible for it. the jury, they've got to feel that. they've got to understand that even though their identities have been kept quiet that there's a chance that somebody is going to figure out who they are. >> yeah, i think the hope is that these individuals who have been very carefully selected in this process have been protected up to this point, they have confidence in the system, and that doesn't sway them. there are other cases. they tried el chapo in the united states. people had credible reasons to worry about that. but the system went forward, and so i think here, you know, we're watching all of this, the notes are about the substance. they're not about the other outside things, although that's relevant. >> i think that's the reason why the jean carroll, we don't know who those jurors are. >> still. >> judge lewis kaplan said to them, if i were you, i wouldn't be speaking to the press or

letting anyone know who you are. in this case, whatever the verdict is, i think these jurors will probably follow suit. it's their choice not to, but they might do the same thing, and we will never hear from them again. >> i know it's bad to speculate, and to guess about how long it's going to take any jury to deliberate, and where they might go. but let's do it. why not. we are three hours and 50 minutes into the deliberations. they came back with a question at two hours or about at the three-hour mark. what is your sense of how long this jury might deliberate on this case. if you were to guess, what would you guess? >> i always said friday. i said maybe thursday. with all of this read back, you know, and they might have more questions, i think it's a good sign, again, you don't want to say for the prosecution or defense, but a good sign that this jury is really engaged, that they immediate jump to that trump tower meeting. they immediately jumped to let's see if michael cohen and david

pecker's stories match. they're thinking, they're ready to go. >> ari, i want to ask you one last question. as you watch this unfold, is there something in particular in terms of a question that you're going to be looking out for as this goes on to give you a good idea of where the verdict is heading? >> if we get more injure -- jury questions, the real key is are they following the d.a.'s case and debating that or something else. a lot of the things about cohen is distractions. that was the argument. and the jury is going to decide that. here at a minimum you've got three questions that go in the d.a.'s direction. the cohen question could go either way. we just don't know. >> how can you tell whether they're following the d.a.'s case or the defense's case? >> if you're the d.a., you want them talking about catch and kill, campaign crimes, campaign motivation, secret meetings and

potentially fraud and financial malfeasance. and if you're the defense, you want them talking about michael cohen, maybe something from costello, although it's hard to imagine what they would want from that, but in fairness, you would want that, and other vagaries of campaign finance law, confusion, you know, things that were really what they cross examined on and so the cohen part is part of that. but that's what we're going to be watching. now they're going to have the evidence read back, the testimonial evidence, and then if they have more questions, we're going to follow those and see. what are they asking about? what are they interested in? you had 20 plus days and 20 plus witnesses. you're not going to spend 20 days doing it in equal time. this isn't a reboot of reliving the whole thing. this is diving into what therm they remember and think will get them to a potential verdict. >> andrew, i have to let you go as well. >> i want to go back to something ari said, and to underscore it. one of my very first trials, all

the notes that came out were all about things that the defense raised, and i, of course, freaked out. i was like, well, the case is lost, and the senior person who is sort of sitting with me during that trial said, no, don't worry about it. they're just testing what the defense said to see if there's any merit to it. he was totally right. they came back, and it was a guilty verdict. it's a way of saying, you really don't know if this is sort of, to read this the opposite way. it is really hard to read notes. >> never judge a book by its cover i think is the lesson here. andrew weissmann, ari melber, thank you very much, good to have you on this. come back if there's any other question or a bell ringing. >> i'm standing by, i promise. >> okay, good. let's go to msnbc legal correspondent and host of msnbc's the katie phang show, katie phang. i want to read before you get into who the jury is, i want to read a little bit from what we

think might be read back to the jury regarding their first question. this is david pecker's testimony about the phone conversation with donald trump while pecker was in the investor meeting. here's what our friend gary grumback believes the testimony is from. where were you when you got this call from donald trump. the answer from pecker, i was at an investor's, at one of my largest investors meetings in new jersey. question, how did the call come in? answer, oh, i was making a presentation, and an update on our business. and the assistant in the office came into the conference room and said, there is a call for you from donald trump. and i left and i took the call. question, and you could tell us about the conversation you had that day with donald trump? answer, yes. when i got on the phone, mr. trump said to me, i spoke to michael, karen is a nice girl. karen as in karen mcdougal.

is it true a mexican was look to go buy her story for $8 million. absolutely don't believe there's a mexican group out there to buy a story for $8 million, and then he said, what do you think i should do. and i said i think you should buy the story and take it off the market. question, so when did the subject of karen mcdougal come up. donald trump describes her as a nice girl. so when the subject of karen mcdougal came up, donald trump described her as a nice girl, answer, from david pecker, yes. catherine, i'm going to throw that to you before i go to katie. >> you don't know whether it's good for the defense or the prosecution. for the prosecution, if i'm sitting there, i want the jury to hear that again. and i'm going to make sure when they're arguing what read back the jury should hear, the prosecution is picking out that

and making sure. i'm the defense, i didn't want to hear all that. i want to hear the whole testimony reading that back to him. and it's a court reporter reading back. >> it's interesting to remind ourselves what the testimony was about. so again, when the subject of karen mcdougal came up, donald trump described her as a nice girl, yes. question, based on your conversation with mr. trump, duff an understanding as to whether he was aware of the specifics of karen mcdougal's description of the affair. answer, i think michael cohen gave him, spoke to donald trump, which he said he was going to do, which, excuse me, which donald trump said on the phone that, quote, i spoke to michael and i believe that when mr. trump said that to me over the phone that she was a nice girl, i believe that he knew who she was. question, why would you recommend to donald trump purchasing the story. answer, i believe the story was true. this is from david pecker again. i think it would have been a

very embarrassing to himself, and also, key here, to his campaign. question, after your conversation with donald trump, did you have another conversation with michael cohen. answer, yes. on the conversation with donald trump, he said to me clearly that he doesn't buy stories because it always gets out, and he said to me that michael cohen would be calling me. he was going to speak to michael and he would be calling me. question, you used a pronoun there. answer, i'm sorry, that's okay. i'm sorry about that. when you said he in that last answer, were you referring to donald trump. yes, i was. i'm sorry. so did there come a time when michael cohen followed up with you. answer, yes, he called me that day or the next day. question, tell us about that conversation. answer, he called me and he said we should -- you should go ahead and buy this story. and he said, i'm going to have dylan howard call you. it's interesting because david

pecker and the prosecution tried to make a point of this, david pecker likes donald trump. david pecker does not have a motive to lie about donald trump. >> called him his mentor. >> there's no animosity from david pecker to donald trump. michael cohen made his own bed. he's angry, but david pecker, hope hicks, others that testified, they like donald trump. and they corroborated much of what michael cohen was saying. >> and they just told the facts, they were under oath, and they were truthful. >> let's go to katie phang. tell us more about this jury. obviously we want to keep their identities a secret. there are some generalities you can fill us in on. >> we're going to start with the fact we have 12 jurors, not including the alternates. seven men and five women. you read tea leaves, when it

comes to the questions or notes. they don't have a question about the law yet. one of the things we look at sometimes is the background of these particular jurors. what are their jobs? how are they synthesizing this information. when you hear that testimony read back that you just did, katy, for our viewers, it sound like they're really drilling down into one of the original sins, as i would call it. one of the original catch and kill schemes. jury number 3 is someone we're interested in because he's an attorney, as well as juror number 7 who's an attorney. when it comes time to get into the law, will the members of the jury defer to them? again, you're not asking for a readback of any of the kind of law as judge merchan explained it to them during jury instructions. they're asking for some of the facts. you heard that they want a read back on the trump tower meeting. they're going to the original conspiracy to catch and kill.

david pecker, michael cohen and donald trump. ultimately that just sets the table, katy, for the 34 counts that we have. 34 felony counts. you have 11 from the invoices submitted by michael cohen, 12 from the vouchers that were logged by deborah tarasoff. this was created by the manhattan d.a.'s office, and it is in evidence. this document, this exhibit we're all looking at right now, the jurors get the chance to be able to look at it as well. there's also something i want to highlight before i turn it back to you. their jury is going to be looking at the checks, the checks that constitute some of the multiple counts that donald trump is looking at. remember, there was one count that deals with the revocable trust account, and there was a second one. you'll see this, katy, over and over again, starting from donald

trump's personal checking account, you've got the $35,000 made payable to michael cohen, and then you have here donald trump's signature, and so the jury is going to be asking themselves, when they're going through each and every one of these counts, these checks, could donald trump credibly say that he did not know that he was a part of this scheme to defraud and so, katy, let's see what type of questions, if any, more that we get back from the jury. >> let's focus a little bit more on the question. they also asked about david pecker's testimony regarding trump tower, and i have pulled up that testimony as well, directing, this is from the prosecution. this is on direct. pecker's testimony on direct. directing your attention to a couple of months later, now in august of 2015. did there come a time when you attended a meeting at trump tower, answer, yes. do you remember when roughly that meeting was in august? answer, it was in the middle of

august. and who was present for that meeting? answer, donald trump, michael cohen, and hope hicks. was hope hicks there the whole time or was she in and out? she was in and out. how about michael cohen and donald trump, were they there for the duration of the meeting. how did the meeting come about? how did you know to go? i received a call from michael cohen telling me that the boss wanted to see me. that's how when i spoke to michael cohen, he referred to donald trump as the boss. what did you understand the purpose of the meeting to be before you actually got there? pecker testifies, most of the time when i receive a call from michael cohen, he wanted something. so i assume that they were going to ask or that i was going to be asked for something. i didn't know what it was going to be before i got there. can you describe for the jury what happened at that meeting, please? answer at that meeting, donald trump and michael, they asked me what i can do and what my magazines could do to help the

campaign. so thinking about it as i did previously, what i would do is run positive stories about donald trump, and run negative stories about his opponents, and i said i would also be the eyes and ears. i would be the eyes and ears because i know the trump organization had a very small staff. and then i said that anything i hear in the marketplace, if i hear anything negative about yourself or anything about women selling stories, i would notify michael cohen as i did over the last several years. i would notify michael cohen and then he would be able to have them kill in another magazine or have them not be published or somebody would have to purchase them. purchase the negative stories about mr. trump so they would not get published, you mean? answer, that they would not get published, yes. question, so i want to break that down a little bit. first of all, when you offered, that was withdrawn -- so you

offered to publish positive stories about mr. trump. answer yes. question, to publish negative stories about his opponents, yes, and to alert him through michael cohen when you came across damaging information particularly regarding women, answer yes. and the idea was that so mr. trump and mr. cohen could prevent that information from being published, answer yes. so you mentioned women in particular. all right. so that's a little bit of david pecker's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting. the jury asked for the testimony from michael cohen presumably trying to see how they line up. we are going to sneak in a very quick break. the jury has not been read back this testimony yet. they're still waiting in the courtroom. we're going to find out why that might be in just a moment. don't go anywhere. don't go anywhere. wanna know a secret? with new secret outlast, you can almost miss the bus... but smell like you didn't. secret fights 99% of odor-causing bacteria. smell fresh for up to 72 hours. secret works! it's a crime to smell that good.

smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu.

when migraine strikes, you're faced with a choice. accept the trade offs of treating? or push through the pain and symptoms? with ubrelvy, there's another option. one dose quickly stops migraine in its tracks. treat it anytime, anywhere without worrying where you are or if it's too late. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. allergic reactions to ubrelvy can happen. most common side effects were nausea and sleepiness. migraine pain relief starts with you. ask about ubrelvy. learn how abbvie could help you save. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... learn how abbvie so my tech and my network need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (aaron) so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. since my citi custom cash® card automatically adjusts to earn me more cash back in my top eligible category... suddenly life's feeling a little more automatic. like doors opening wherever i go... [sound of airplane overhead] even the ground is moving for me!

y'all seeing this? wild! and i don't even have to activate anything. oooooohhh... automatic sashimi! earn cash back that automatically adjusts to how you spend with the citi custom cash® card. [mind blown explosion noise] we all need fiber for our digestive health, but less than 10% of us get enough each day. good thing metamucil gummies are an easy way to get prebiotic, plant-based fiber. with the same amount of fiber as 2 cups of broccoli. metamucil gummies the easy way to get your daily fiber.

were you worried the wedding would be too much? nahhhh... (inner monologue) another destination wedding?? why can't they use my backyard!! with empower, we get all of our financial questions answered. so we don't have to worry. empower. what's next.

and we're back. the jury, again, has four questions. they want some testimony read back to them. judge merchan took those questions. he's off the bench. there's something of a delay. we're going to find out what that means eventually. joining us now is former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, duncan levin. and catherine christian is still with us r. before we get into the what is the delay question, i read back some of the testimony the jury is likely to hear. this is regarding david pecker's meeting at trump tower, and there was something in it that

stood out to you, catherine. >> which i forgot and maybe some jurors forgot. at that meeting, donald trump suggested david pecker help for his campaign. those words came out of donald trump's mouth, if we believe david pecker, so as josh stein glass said yesterday over and over and over, this was all about the campaign to promote his election by unlawful means. >> at that meeting, donald trump and michael cohen asked me what i can do and what my magazines could do to help the campaign. duncan, in looking, also welcome, in looking at the four questions that the jury that has, does anything stand out to you? is there any through line? >> the through line is that these are all things that involve donald trump, so there's a lot of testimony in this trial about michael cohen doing things, allen weisselberg doing things, and the defense is set up, ultimately this defense that donald trump had nothing to do with, this was a scheme

concocted by allen weisselberg and michael cohen. it's interesting now that the jurors are focusing on donald trump's actions, donald trump's phone call, donald trump's meeting at trump tower. these were things where donald trump specifically was involved, and the trump tower meeting in 2015 really gets to the heart of the matter that the prosecution is trying to prove, which is that this conspiracy was to promote an election by unlawful means. it was about an election. not about covering up stories his wife didn't find out about, and it was about an election, cooked up by him. donald trump asked, what can you do for me, what can you do to help with the election. it gets to the heart of the charges but also donald trump's specific involvement as a member of this conspiracy. >> todd blanche and emil bove according to the reporters in the room. they're looking at the transcripts from all of the testimony during this trial. and they appear to be using a paper copy, not an electronic copy. a large binder, a minimum of six

inches thick. that is a whole lot of testimony. tight transcript pages. why don't we read the michael cohen testimony regarding a trump tower as well. where exactly did the three of you meet? michael cohen said, mr. trump's office on the 26th floor. could you tell the jury please what was discussed and what was agreed to at that meeting. michael cohen, what was discussed was the power of the national enquirer in terms of being located at the cash register of so many supermarkets and bodegas that if we could place positive stories mr. mr. trump, that would be beneficial. if woe could place negative stories about some of the other candidates, that would also be beneficial. was there anything else that mr. pecker said he could do for mr. trump's candidacy and his answer yes. what in substance did he say. he said he could keep an eye out for anything negative about mr.

trump and would know about what is coming out and try to stop it from coming out. and who did he say he would get in touch with if he was able to identify those types of stories? the answer was me, michael cohen said. mr. trump also. knowing my relationship with david, the two of you should work together and anything negative -- this is what mr. trump said, knowing my relationship with david, mr. trump said that the two of you should work together and anything negative that comes out, you let michael know and we'll handle it. so this is michael cohen saying very similar to what david pecker said. david pecker said look at the eyes and ears and david pecker said woe be the lookout. >> and that is what the jury is going to hear. compare the testimony of pecker and michael cohen and see that donald trump really was the leader of the conspiracy. it wasn't michael cohen being rogue. at least that is what the prosecution is -- >> and again david pecker

doesn't have an incentive to hurt donald trump. he likes donald trump. >> and what the prosecution is saying is that michael cohen is a liar and he lies about a lot of things but he's not lying about the court part of case which is this conspiracy to basically subvert the election. and that is what this testimony gets right to the heart at, the way that this testimony by david pecker and the testimony by michael cohen fit together. and it fits together perfectly when you read it together next to each other and that is what the jurors are doing. they're putting the pieces of two important pieces in this jigsaw puzzle together in the way in which this meeting went down from one person's perspective and another. >> all right. so the jury bell, remember it sounds like an old 1960s rotary phone according to our reports in there. that could be a sign they're ready to enter and that this testimony will start to be read back to them. it will take some time. i just read some of it to you. what we believe it is likely regarding. before we go, let's bring in

senior adviser of the lincoln project and from the 2020 presidential campaign, stewart stevens. you can't separate the politics from what donald trump is facing legally in the courtroom. we've paid so much attention to this. and in your estimation, how is this playing across the country? are people going to be paying attention, will it matter if donald trump is found guilty of a felony? >> yeah, i think it will patter. i don't know any part of american life where people say, you know, i would have hired that person if he wasn't convicted of a felony. i would like to hire a cope or a teacher or someone to work for me but they weren't convicted of a felony. i think it is going to have a sort of corrosive effect on trump. i think it already has. he looks small and weak in this case. and the entire premise of his defense is so absurd. it is that i paid $130,000 to a porn star, not to have sex.

now, you think about that for two minutes and it just seems ridiculous. so is it decisive? no. but nothing in the campaign is. it is an accumulation of a -- and we've got joe biden out there looking like a president, giving a commencement address and you have donald trump flailing around in the courtroom. >> the prosecution said this was election interference. do you think they made their case clear? >> well, look, anybody that ever worked on a campaign would know that if you're paying $130,000 before an election, it is part of the election. this should have been prosecuted by the fcc but they have become a nonfunctioning entity now because of the way that it is set up with three democrats and three republicans. but this is just -- this is laverable. of course it is an election campaign and of course it was paid to stop this coming out to

the public. and if the public could know the difference, who knows. but it is very difficult in politics and donald trump who wants to -- thought that it was worth $130,000. >> stewart seasons thank you so much. and thank you all. thank you, the jury has wrung the bell again. and it looks like there is another note. don't worry, nicolle wallace will have all of this in just a second after a very quick break when "deadline: white house" starts. k when "deadline: white house" starts from afib not caused by a heart valve problem,... ...we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart

valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking, you may bruise more easily... ...or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor about eliquis. (vo) if you have graves' disease, your eye symptoms could mean something more. blood thinner. that gritty feeling can't be brushed away. even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes. up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com

first, we did the impossible. then, you ate so many of the impossible that we completely ran out. and now... ♪♪ they're backk! the footlong cookie is back at subway! ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. (vo) red hot deal days are here. only until may 29th. get a bundle of your choice on us. so you'll get a free phone and a smartwatch and a tablet. yep, all 3 on us

only at verizon. ♪♪ imagine a future where plastic is not wasted... but instead remade over and over... into the things that keep our food fresher, our families safer, and our planet cleaner. to help us get there, america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars to create innovative products and new recycling technologies for sustainable change. because when you push for smarter solutions, big things can happen.