hi, everyone. here we go. it is 4:00 in new york. oh, to be a fly on the wall behind these closed doors. in the courthouse that has seen no shortage of famous influential or wealthy criminal defendants. 12 new yorkers and seven men and five women are right now debating the fate of a former president of the united states and they have questions. the jury in the historic trump criminal election interference hush money trial is at this moment deliberating on the 34 felony counts trump is charged with by the manhattan district attorney. just in, in the last few minutes, a second note has been sent from the jury, they're asking to re-hear judge

merchan's instructions to them and earlier they are requested testimony from david pecker and michael cohen. our journalists are standing watch and they are updating us and we'll update you as soon as we know anything. as of 4:00 p.m., the juries that deliberated for four hours after yesterday's marathon day of closing arguments, more than 7 hours between the closing argument delivered by the defense and the prosecution. this morning the judge delivered toz complicated but all important jury instructions. when judge mer shan explained how the juries have to apply the laws to this case. something that matters in this case, but in this one where donald trump faces felony charges, nots not misdemeanor, because it was to conceal another crime. the jury instructions took on a

new importance. they did not have agree amongst themselves what the underlying crime was. "new york times" reports that the jury did not have to agree unanimously that they might determine that trump use the in the election conspiracy. had the judge required them to be unanimous on the unlawful means it might have become far hard tore reach a verdict. the judge went through each and every one of the single felony counts, each one pointing to 11 checks and 11 invoices and 12 vouchers. the judge explained what needed to be proven to show that trump falsified these records or caused the records to be falsified. now as for defendant, donald trump, he's forced to wait just like every other criminal defendant in the country. any moment now he could find out whether he'll be asking the american people to send him to the white house with a criminal conviction on his record. he has been spending his time

posting a lot of nutty things on the platform truth social. earlier he said, does not know what he's been charged with. ine though they were read to him while he was there. just before that, he posted a rant from outside of the courthouse where he claimed mother teresa could not beat these charges. if mother teresa would be charged with concealing hush money payments to hide an affair with a porn star. we're sorry we said her name in that sentence. wait-and-see mode in the interference hush money criminal trial is where we begin with our most favorite reporters and friends. with us at the table, andrew wiseman is back and susan craig, and also back former deputy assistant attorney harry litman is here and outside of the courthouse, vaughn hillyard. vaughn, what is happening right now? i want to look down to see what is happening in the courtroom

but i won't do that. i'll let you tell us. >> reporter: well first of all, i'm wondering how rings of the bell we're going to get. because it is not clear when the jury, from the jury room, rings the bell into the courtroom whether they have a verdict or have a note with questions. and now so far they have rung in twice with two different notes. the jury just in the last two minutes re-entered the courtroom and there were two requests from the jury to judge merchan. number one, there were four specific parts of testimony including from michael cohen and david pecker that they want to have reread to them. judge merchan informing them it is 30 pages of testimony required to be read back to them. that could last up to 30 minutes. they are still in the courtroom trying to go and gather those pages of transcripts from all of the way back if april to may 13th when michael cohen testified. the second request is to reread the jury instructions that judge

merchan delivered this morning. this is the packet of jury instructions. he read it once and it took him an hour and a 26 minutes to do so. it is complicate and the case is complex and the jury instructions are complex because it pertained to a lot of legal statues and now the question that the judge just put to the jurors do you want the whole thing read back or a specific part of the jury instructions. that is what we're waiting to hear from the jury in this closing hours of day one ever deliberation. >> so let me read back to you the first part of this which was the first ringing of the bell. is it an actual bell? >> reporter: we're told by lisa rubin that it sounds like a 1960s telephone. so if that takes you back, sometimes government is a little slow to update. but there you go. >> okay. that is my burning question. so those were the four questions that the first ring of the bell

were -- that the jury expressed they wanted to see. these are the transcripts they're running down. one, david pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with donald trump while pecker was in the investor meeting. this came up closer to the end when i think the prosecution reminded -- it came up maybe in someone's cross or i don't remember why it came up, but this was trump on the phone with pecker. he pulled him out of a meeting and he said, i don't pay for stuff like this. this seemed like an important part of tieing trump to the whole scheme, vaughn? >> reporter: right. it is around karen mcdougal purchasing of the story. he was at an investor meeting in new jersey when he got this phone call. his assistant came in and said donald trump is on the line and he stepped out and that is when the phone call took place about the specifics of karen mcdougal story and david pecker testified to this jury that he, in fact, thought the story was real and credible and based on the fact

that donald trump told him that karen was a quote, nice girl. and that he urged donald trump on that phone call that the story should be purchased. and donald trump followed up saying he should talk to michael, michael cohen, about executing that arrangement. this is all at the beginning of the conspiracy that the jury is having to deliberate over. and we have from the jury instructions that the jury is now asking to be reread to them, that michael cohen was an accomplice in that and under new york state law, you have to have corroborating evidence or testimony and that is where it is interesting to see david pecker, multiple conversations that donald trump had with him being asked to be reread back to them, that specific testimony, because when you match it up, you see corroborating testimony, not just documentary evidence, but there was circumstantial evidence and testimony that david pecker linked donald trump to the beginning of the conspiracy. >> yeah, andrew, i'll ask you to pick up on vaughn's point. let me tell the viewers what

happened in the last 60 seconds. the jury has been dismissed for the day after judge merchan brought them back in after they rang their bell a second time. told them they were going to run down the transcripts of this testimony that vaughn just described perfectly. we'll tell what you the other three pieces of testimony are that they want. but the jury wanted the jury instruction read back to them. you waved around your packet. the whole thing took about an hour and a half to read and judge merchan asked them to clarify, whether they wanted the whole instruction or just part of it. so that is where they pick up tomorrow morning at 9:30. >> this gives the judge and the parties to have their ducks in a row so when the jury comes back, they could be ready to go. so everybody understands, this is a normal part as harry knows, of what you have -- whether a jury is out. they could ask to have some kind of instruction reread or some question about the instructions.

and rereading it is simple once the jury responds in saying that they want the whole thing read back. he could do that. he just reads that. >> i saw there his instruction, he said i won't give this to you but i will read it to you again. why wouldn't he give them a copy. >> a quirk of new york federal law. i was a federal prosecutor, this would go back to -- many judges would send it back there. some judges didn't. because they really thought that it might have them sort of pars it too much. but that is something that in other courts, but not in new york. in new york they could ask to have it read. more typically, they ask questions like can you please specify some more what beyond a reasonable doubt means. because that is the level of -- in your head how to deal with that and how convey to somebody what a level of certitude is.

that is a common question. the other questions. the more interesting one which is the first note where there is endless speculation that goes on as to what does it mean and you could argue it each way. when i was a prosecutor, i argued it against me. no matter what came in, it is awful. no matter how good it was. no one ever wanted me to do trials because i was like we're losing no matter what happened. so i'm a terrible person to ask. >> i was like that with campaigns. >> i said this to someone and that is what is he said. i was exactly the same way. >> every good operative owes -- >> so that was me at trials. and, so, the reason it takes time is not every note is absolutely crystal clear as to the page and line number. as to where do you start, so typically the prosecution or the defense will be wanting to make sure they're points are in there and they'll make arguments to

the judge about how to interpret the note. that is why the precise wording, it is like biblical -- >> so let's go. that is important to note. so lets start at the beginning. the first note is the david pecker testimony regarding the testimony in the investor meeting. >> right. i think the judge is going to be like, no, i'm interpreting it by the exact words. it is the phone call and the investor meeting. i don't want to hear about your argument or why he's a truth teller or why he's a liar. all of the things that one side or the other might be pushing for. he's going to be like give me the page and the line number and he's going to go through that. but -- >> why is that important? >> so, you know, this is one where to just take the plus side of it, is the jury is trying to decide did this happen? and josh steinglass just spent, you know, five hours talking about this sort of beginning

middle and end of the scheme that he said existed. this is the beginning. and having david pecker also with -- was somebody who to a large extent was not challenged by the defense. one of things that we've been noting is just the unusual nature of not really challenging david pecker and he had damaging testimony, not challenging hope hicks and she had damaging testimony. but stormy daniels, she gets challenged, where it is not that relevant. and so this in some ways is a good note if you're the state because you're thinking i want them to focus on this. but it is also four weeks ago. >> right. >> and the other thing that i think if i were a prosecutor and not a pessimist that i always am and i try to just be rational about it. i would like to -- i would like the note that talked about michael cohen and saying i want to have his version of what happened at the trump tower

meeting. because the entire import of the defense summation was don't listen to a thing he has to say. you doent want any read back of him because he was the gloat and the mvp, all of the epithets about him. and why even ask about him. he determined he lies once, two, three times and the jury instruction is it is up to you whether you want to believe it or not. so i like that piece of it. >> so susan, so the second piece of testimony that the jury asked for today in the first note was david pecker's testimony regarding the decision not to finalize and fund the life rights for mcdougal. why is that important? >> i think they're looking at, in this case, decision not to finalize it. because he -- what was it in the mcdougal case, he just didn't go ahead with it. so i think they're looking at the pattern there.

both that and the dino the doorman were entered into. and that is the pattern in establishing what it could go to intent, i would think. and then the third and the fourth one are interesting because it is david pecker's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting and then michael cohen's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting. i was focused on those two because i think they're going to want to see what did david pecker say, and what does michael cohen say and how does it line up. because michael cohen, they're going to want and the judge instructed them this morning, because he's a accomplice, as they call them, they have to have corroborating evidence for it. so they're going to want to hear what david pecker said and what michael cohen said and see if there is any discrepancies there. i think that is really important. >> i have said in every hour, every day, that i have no sense of how the jury experienced any of this. but it is interesting that the jury did a better job than we did of sustaining the arc.

we covered this day by day. it seems that once michael cohen took the stand we became amnesia patients and everything that came before it felt a lot less of heat and attention and we talked about the cross and the one moment the defense had. but what the jury wants to see are three pieces of evidence and testimony that are from the earliest days of testimony. >> so it your point, i think it matters. the jury tends to see things in a sweep and make credibility judgments relative to others and we tend to cover oh, my lord, there was this thing about the october 24th call. on all of this stuff, i think three things are important. first, they're focusing on pecker and as sue said, they must find corroboration. whether or not they believe cohen or not. so that seems to be they're zeroing in. and two, pecker said he believes trump is lying. pecker said, when by nice girl, he thought this was true, et

cetera. so that seems to suggest they're looking at his overall credibility. and third, maybe most important, he adds this later, it is only two pages of transcript, he'll be able to read it back. if there is any issue, go to cohen. so it strongly corroborates the idea ma michael cohen put forward that he's the fixer and everything he's doing is because trump gave the instruction to anyone and everyone but specially david pecker. i think that is the money part of that call. >> when i see in knowing the trump political story as well as i did, what was for me is pecker, as a press we never knew what he told the southern district of new york. so the trump tower meeting whether it is pecker's testimony or cohen's, they're both about a meeting in which trump called a trump between him and pecker. >> and this is the period where

everything you reverse engineer and work eight different ways but that is the headline. this is trump's direct involvement. this is bad news for donald trump as i interpret this question. we're always interpreting. >> tea leaves, yes. >> but it is focusing on his credibility and his role in the scheme including causing these false statements to have been made in the first place. >> remember, that is josh steinglass at 8:00 p.m. last night, the last part of his summation was about just go back over the highlights of direct participation of donald trump. he wanted to nail that down. and the powerpoint he used, if you were in the courtroom, was sort of remarkable. because as he hit a point, it was sort of pop out the exhibit for the testimony. so it kept on populating. so by the end, what looked like a small list was like a -- the tree. and so -- >> do they have them, control

room? no, that is a great point. and it is interesting to me that the documents were in front of them day in and day out. we got them in a different method. which is why we're trying to see if we have them. the jury saw the documents. they probably saw your famous witness exhibit 35. so what they're looking for is actually what people said. >> yeah. exactly. and now because they have the laptop in there, so the sort of hard evidence is something that they could access. that is why the two types of notes are really the only two types that we'll see. which is law notes and witness notes. and so that makes total sense. it would be getting that. this is -- just to warn people. this is the slog part of the -- because you want the final answer. but there is a lot of -- there is a lot of peas and vegetables

that you have to eat to get to the end. and, so, if they also -- you could assume if they are starting there, there will be other things like this along the way. and as judge merchan has said to the parties, i want your -- what it is that you're each saying i should read and he'll make a decision on that. presumably all that will happen this afternoon so that the first thing that happens tomorrow morning will be the read. >> by friday, that ring tone, when we hear it, we'll have traumatic -- in response. >> speaking of pavlov responses. vaughn hillyard, i have not seen with my own eyeballs but eye seen some press coverage of trump's expressions, i guess you could call them. messages or misses. his posts on social media. i think the technical term is flipping out. what is your sense? >> reporter: he was posting a lot of right-wing commentators

and allies, number one, who were posting their own you know sides of trial and why they think that donald trump should be acquitted. but then there was also other posts which you are directly alluding to and i think your description of them would be accurate. but it was him misrepresenting the charges that were brought before him. and conflating the unlawful manner that there is part of the statute that is being articulated as part of the new york state election law. and conflating that with a broader idea that the jurors are able to find him guilty on a matter of number of issues and that it is not one specific charges that he's facing. and he himself said that he doesn't even know what the charges against him are. which is just not accurate. if in fact he was listening to the hour and 26 minutes of jury instructions. because over the course of the

that time, judge merchan read not once, but twice, the statutes that he is facing and the jury is deliberating on whether he's guilty of. so right now he's holding in a side room as the two sides are deliberating over what pages of testimony are going to be read to the jurors tomorrow. so he's still at that courthouse and when he is not in the courtroom, he does clearly have access to his phone. and he's so far put it to good use during the more than four hours of deliberation so far. >> susan? >> i want to talk a little bit about michael cohen. because the questions three and four are important. they want to see pecker's testimony and michael cohen's testimony. and i want to pair that up with what the jury was told this morning by the judge because there is so much discussion about michael cohen and he's a liar and could we believe him and if you believe part of what he said and is that okay and

still think he's a liar. and here is what the judge told the jury. michael cohen is an accomplice because there is evident that he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant. and what they were told was, there short, even if you find that the testimony of michael cohen to be believable, you may not convict the defendant solely upon the testimony unless you also find there was corroborated other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. so whatever michael cohen said, they want to make sure that there is a back-up and i sense that is the heart of the questions of two -- three and four that came back. >> and meeting is a thing for which there is no document. so your point about the clothes, the records are in front of them. the records are in front of their eyes. they were sign and entered into evidence and discussed.

>> but intent is different. it is going to come from discussions and the testimony. the documents do a lot of work in it trial because you still have to come to intent. >> and it is corroborating testimony. precisely. >> right. and that meeting seems to establish the original sin, the original plan. where the plot was hatched. >> but it also really does support, assuming that there is -- that this is where they're looking at it, it does support the prosecution's theory of the case. because the defense theory of the case is all that ami stuff, that is irrelevant. everyone does it. and it has nothing to do with stormy daniels. it is over and done with. that is not part of some larger scheme. that is something that is legal. i mean, that is campaigns do, apparently, nicolle, we learned that that is something that you and your journalist friends do all of the time with campaigns.

campaigns and candidates always have secret agreements. but even if you didn't believe that, it is just like, that was done and separate. we're now on to michael cohen and his own individual like shenanigans with stormy daniels as if that other stuff didn't happen. so the fact that they're viewing this as -- in the way that the prosecution or at least they're testing that. that this is one -- this is a part of a -- the same scheme. remember, josh steinglass theory is to only -- the only reason that the national enquirer backed out is because they frankly -- his general counsel said no mas. can you not get reimbursed so i can't be a bank. we're out of this. because presumably any general counsel would say, you're doing what. and that is why they have to do this. and connecting -- this is a good part if you're the tate thinking about -- that they're thinking

about this in totality. >> so a couple of updates from us to you. court is still in session. as vaughn reported. trump is sort of holding in a room up there. the jury has left for the day. they're deliberating about what the four pieces of testimony will look like and which pages and sentences will go to the jury to fulfill their request for these four pieces of testimony to be made available to them as they deliberate. we're still looking for some clarification, i don't know if judge merchan got it about how much of the jury instructions the jury wanted read back to them. whether it was all of them, andrew waived this around, it is thick and it took an hour and 26 minutes to read and do they want all of it. if we learn anything we'll update you right away. because this came back to ami and the original conspiracy, those are two of the pieces of evidence that the jurors asked for today in the first ring of the bell, which is an actual ring of a bell-like sound.

locklan cartwright where join our show as well. and in the matter of supreme court justice alito potential recusal related to january 6. that judge making that decision today was samuel alito. wait until you hear how he explains himself and who his deciders are. all of that stories and more when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere today. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley power e*trade's easy to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans can help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley what will you do when the power goes out? power outages can be unpredictable

and inconvenient, but with a generac home standby generator, your life goes on uninterrupted. because when your generac detects a power outage, it automatically powers up, giving your family the security and peace of mind they deserve. we don't have to worry about whether we lose power or not. if the utility company does not come through, our generac does. after the hurricane happened, we just want to be prepared for anything. 8 out of 10 home generators are generac, with thousands of satisfied customers. number one thing to prepare for is extended power outages. don't make it so hard on yourself, have a generac home standby generator. and owning a generator is easier than ever. special financing and low monthly payment options are available, and if you call now, you will also receive a free 5 year warranty valued at over $500. call or go online now to request your free quote.

we're back, for those of you just joining us, court is still in session. prosecutors and defense attorneys are huddled up over

the transcripts that the jurors asked for. they're looking at the testimony that was requested today and in their first ring of the bell. the jury has asked for testimony from david pecker and michael cohen, as for donald trump, he's currently in a holding room outside of the courtroom itself. let' bring into our coverage with american media inc. and special correspondent locklan cartwright. he's waiting for news. so we wanted to bring you back today because -- >> i'm waiting on the bell to ring. >> like waiting for the new pope. the first thing they asked for was the first thing we talked about. first time we had a chance to talk around the round table and that is the original conspiracy. the original conspiracy to influence the 2016 election by burying negative stories about trump and filling the pages of the national enquirer with terrible stories. first the republican primary opponents and then hillary clinton. that is the first thing the jury

wanted, was the testimony from david pecker which was never challenged by trump's lawyers at any point ever. and they wanted testimony specifically about the meeting where the whole plot was hatched, the trump tower meeting. your thoughts? >> yeah, we talked a lot about this meeting and i sort of highlighted it over and over again. because it is so crucial to this case. in that in august of 2015, david pecker went to trump tower to meet with michael cohen and to see donald trump. and when asked what he could do for the campaign, i'll be the eyes and ears. we'll purchase negative stories off the market and run negative stories about your rivals while promoting donald trump and that is the basis of everything that we've heard so far. from the dino the doorman payment of $30,000 to the karen mcdougal payment of $150,000. so the stormy daniels payment of $130 k which forms the basis for the falsification of business

records. so it is clear that the david pecker testimony, we talked about it yesterday on air, and i think i said that he was the ultimate tour guide and a viewer picked up that he was the sewer guide. he did really highlight these three payments that went on and that forms a base of the conspiracy. they're not asking for information about the business records. they're asking for the reed back of dade pecker's testimony which does go to the heart of this matter. >> you know, i tried to drill down with you on what we learned for the first time in our first public view of david pecker and the full story. because he was -- he had immunity from the southesh district of new york. we never knew what he shared with the federal prosecutors who charged michael cohen and named donald trump individual one. a co-conspirator in that conspiracy that sent michael cohen to jail. what we learned was that all that changed between dino the

doorman and karen mcdougal and stormy, all three stories are caught and killed all that changed is the funding mechanism and that is where the business records are falsified and that is where trump becomes the bank because david pecker testified under oath, i will not be a bank any more. remind us what changes inside of ami between dino, mcdougal and stormy? >> well, david pecker's frustration about not being paid back for these catch and kills. $30,000, it was a highly unusual amount of money. it was also an extremely large amount of money. but then you go forward to the karen mcdougal payment and now david pecker needs to hide this $150,000 page and he's not being paid back. he will have to tell asset management that owned ami, what payments are about. so he needs to get the money back and he's making that clear to michael cohen. and that is what he testified to. that he was getting pretty angry

with michael cohen, that he's not getting paid back. so by the time stormy daniels is going on, which we know is in light of the access hollywood tape, days before the election, there is no patience david pecker has for spending any more money. he's happy to use the resources of american media and that is why dillon howard is involved with michael cohen but he's not happy to open up his checkbook and that is crucially where the jury is asking for the read back of this testimony. michael cohen was the go between between american media and donald trump. and crucially one of the pieces that they're looking for read back is on the testimony, david pecker's testimony about this phone call that goes on at the investor conference where they have a conversation, donald trump and david pecker have a conversation about karen mcdougal and donald trump said these matters always get out. but it is one the few times that there is a direct conversation going on between donald trump

and david pecker about one of the catch and kills which i also find is quite essential about what the jury is asking for here. >> so, lochlan, let me read this back to you. this is from david pecker's direct testimony. i don't remember the cross about the trump tower meeting about what you're talking about. prosecutor, a few months later in august of 2015 did you aend it a meeting in trump tower. david pecker, yes. the middle of august. prosecutor, who was present? david pecker, donald trump and hope hicks was in and out. how did the meeting come about. david pecker, i received a call from michael cohen saying the boss wanted to see me. what did you understand the purpose of the meeting to be. david pecker, most the time when i received a call from michael cohen, he wanted something. but i didn't know what. at that meeting, donald trump and michael, they asked me what can i do and what my magazines can do to help the campaign. so thinking about it, i said,

what i would do is publish positive stories about mr. trump and i would publish negative stories about his opponent. and i said, i would also be his, trump's eyes and ears, because i know the trump organization had a very small staff and i said anything i hear in the mark place, if i hear anything negative about yourself or about women selling stories, i will notify michael cohen. as i've done over the last several years and then he would be able to have them killed in another magazine or someone would have to publish them so they wouldn't get published. prosecutor, you mentioned women. in particular. did you raise that or did someone else raise that? david pecker, in a presidential campaign, i was the person that thought there would be a lot of women who would come out to try to sell their stories because there trump was well-known as the most eligible bachelor. and dated the most beautiful women. and it was clear based on my

past experience when someone is running for public office, it is very common for these women to call up magazines like the national enquirer to try to tell their stories. fact check, just a little teeny per snicketty thing, i think he was married the whole time they were friends. but that is the conspiracy. >> i'm getting a laugh in the courtroom. >> but that is what the jury wants to see. this is -- this is the most basic element of the election interference scheme. >> what happened at that meeting -- >> go ahead lochlan. >> i was going to say, this is the building blocks. what happened at this meeting, what was put in place, what was discussed that meeting, first it is totally not normal. the defense is been saying this is all normal. these type of agreements, no, it is not normal.

secondly, those building blocks that are put in place, that discussion crucially particularly about the purchasing of information, then leads to these payments. and in dino and in karen and in stormy daniels. so that meeting is the foundation of the conspiracy. and i think that is what the jury is really trying to lockdown on as we speak. >> harry? >> i just want to make a fairly obvious point which i think the meaning is also, it may be singular in everything that the jury heard that it involves more than two people. when they go into triage mode, we have hicks and davidson and there is two person after two-person call. there was one other three-person meeting, that was trump and weisselberg and cohen. by weisselberg doesn't testify. but this is the most important example where the jury has a ready made ability to hear from

michael cohen and hear from david pecker. two people testified about the same encounter. i don't -- i think that is really distinctive in the whole trial. >> andrew. >> -- i wanted to go to the second part of the request. because i think it does reflect either poor wording or the jury i think is going to learn something because the question isn't really precise. as we understand it, they said, we want david pecker's testimony regarding the decision not to finalize and fund the decision of life rights for karen mcdougal. the reason that is slightly off but i think this could be very educational for them, is the national enquirer does, in fact, fund this. they do go forward with it. so they're not backing off of this. it is the reimbursement, it is the sort of michael cohen assignment piece and that is

because david pecker said i went and talked to my general counsel, i can't talk about what happened. and then i came out and we no longer wanted to reimbursement for this and that is why he then later said i'm not the bank. and, so, i think it will make it very clear sort ever what sets up this stormy daniels payment needing to come from michael cohen. and, so, the question just could be poorly worded but i think it is to the extent that someone wasn't exactly clear about why the national enquirer didn't go forward, it is going to -- i think that read back is going to hammer that home and set up, i think, a discussion within the jury, let's talk about the stormy daniels phase and why michael needs to be the bank. >> and merchan will not rewrite it for them. they'll have questions an the judge will decide not to give. here he could just read the testimony.

but he won't say do you mean this. if it is confusing, he'll just decide, we won't ask that question. >> david pecker did get into in his testimony some of the reasons why he didn't fund it. and they're going to hear that. he got legal advice -- >> stormy? why he didn't fund stormy? >> yeah. >> but you're saying that the question implies a misunderstanding of the mcdougal funding. >> that the mcdougal funding, you do fund it but they decided flot to take the money back. >> lochlan, we'll give you the last word. what is your sort of spidey sense picking up that these are the things that the jury is first interested in hearing more about? >> my initial spidey sense is it is not a good indicator for donald trump. they're not looking for further information about the paper, that is pretty locked down. but they are going back to that meeting in august of 2015 which is establishing the conspiracy

and looking at david pecker's testimony in particular, and compared to michael cohen, pecker on the stand was quite credible. and had all of the industrial knowledge of what had gone on. so, you know, i think that it is really interesting that this would look at david pecker over michael cohen. but i think the pecker testimony is the tick tock of how the conspiracy is formed and how it is carried out in the lead up to the election and following the election when he then goes and meets again with donald trump. >> yeah, and importantly, there is no remorse articulated in donald trump after pecker's direct and i don't remember if there was a cross. if there was -- >> it was a friend and mentor. >> trump was out talking -- the jury wouldn't have seen this but he said he's very strong for me. i'm not reading from an actual transcript. these are from journalists notes

in the courtroom. the con tom perainus votes that we get. lochlan cartwright is in dispensable. thank you so much for jumping in front of the camera. we're going to sneak in a quick break. we'll be right back on the other side. eak. we'll be right back on the other side [street noise] [car door shuts] [paparazzi cameras] introducing, ned's plaque psoriasis. ned, ned, who are you wearing? he thinks his flaky red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. ned? otezla can help you get clearer skin, and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis.

don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. audience: ohhh... with clearer skin, movie night is a groovy night. (♪♪) live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

today, at america's beverage companies,... ...our bottles might still look the same... ...but they can be remade in a whole new way. thanks to you... we're getting bottles back... and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic. new bottles - made using no new plastic. you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. and when we get more of them back... ...we can use less new plastic. see how our bottles are made to be remade. vaughn hillyard is now back with us. the table is still here with me. andrew was explaining when the jury gets what they asked for,

they will not get it in hard copy. they will have pieces of testimony read back to them. even as i sit here, i i'm able to look at pages of notes, it not a perfect final transcript, but it is paper in front of me. they won't have that. >> right. and it makes it quite difficult to not be able to actually have the witness testimony to go back to. these are very specific lines that the witnesses were testifying to. and actually yesterday, when i was sitting in the courtroom, when todd blanche was delivering his closing arguments there was one line that made me go back to david pecker's testimony on april 23rd, which there has been about 30 mets games since then and a few episodes of jeopardy and a few "new york times" crossword puzzles that i've worked on since then. this is what todd blanche said about the august 2015 trump tower meeting. quote, they didn't even discuss catch and kill at the august

2015 meeting. mr. pecker told you and mr. cohen didn't dispute that and he went on to continue. it wasn't even discussed at the time the conspiracy was formed. no financial discussion, no discussion about catch and kill. and that made me in real time be like, wait a second, am i remembering david pecker's own testimony and it forces many he to go back to the transcript and when i saw that this was the first question i wasn't too surprised. because as you've read, david pecker testified to you didn't call it catch and kill but he used the word kill. and him talking to michael cohen and donald trump about potentially killing stories as part of this plan that wasn't named catch and kill. so if you're the jury, all of a sudden you hear that from todd blanche in closing arguments, there could have been a dispute over what played out as david pecker was testifying in the very first days of this criminal trial. >> andrew, this makes me wonder if the defense wouldn't be better served to eat the things that they didn't want to remind

the jury about that were so bad for them. >> yes. [ laughter ] >> that is from my norn-lawyer. >> i do think that the defense has a different mission. and so it is fair to sometimes have very inconsistent arguments because one thing might appeal to one juror, one thing might appeal to another. also, if you have a sort of plausible good-faith argument, but you don't think it is the strongest, you might still bring it up. because again, you don't know if one juror might find it. where i think the line is, when it is implausible. where you're going to hurt your credibility. where they're going to be like, come on. it is like access hollywood. >> start a mean like "access ho is a classic example. >> among the jurors they're like, no, we know that's not true. >> exactly. you're trying to give ammunition to jurors who are on your side, and you do have to decide where

sf like too far. making the argument about "access hollywood" not being a big deal, calling costello to the stand, you know, and not being able to push back on your client, all of those -- >> saying this was real legal services. >> i mean there are a number of decisions gnat i think, one, again to be fair to the lawyers is -- they have a client. the prosecution has a client, which is the public. and so the public's easier to manage. donald trump obviously is notoriously difficult. he managed to take his 5 million judgment against him in the e. jean carroll case, and he decided it was a really good idea and knew better and became

85 million. he can do that and may suffer the consequences. you're absolutely right you have to figure out where to pick your battles even understanding you have greater leeway than the prosecution does. >> susan, you're looking at the law that they're going to be asked to apply. >> it's interesting right now we're looking at did they conspire to influence the election. people get together all the time to try and win elections. so the question september did they unlawfully conspire. once we get to that point it's interesting because then they're given some options. they don't have to agree what the violation was. they're given actually three. i'm going to read what the judge read to them this morning and what they're going to be wrestling with as they go through this. he told them in determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of an any person to a public office by unlawful means you may consider the following. the first one is violations of the federal election campaign

act otherwise known as fica. two, the falsification of other business records. we've talked a lot about that here. and three, a violation of tax laws. they're sort of going to drop down the menu once they get to that part of the discussion. somebody could say it's falsification of the business records. someone else could say it's a tax crime that michael cohen got a 1099 form and the other is the violation of the federal election campaign act. they can all have a different view on that once they get to that portion of it. >> it was a brouhaha on wednesday. this makes it a lot easier for the prosecution. i think this is the bottom line that stuff made our heads spin all the way through, but the way it comes through the jury is a fair bit simpler. they've got to find falsification of records, and this is i think the prime

example of what andrew is talking about. what are they thinking trying to argue it's not false and what does it do for their whole case, and that's for starters and done in order to promote a presidential election. that doesn't seem so hard. and then it's true through unlawful means, that can be tricky. but the d.a. was very, i think -- very much emphasized the federal violation. and merchan read law that basically says you can only give at the time in 2016 what was it $2,700 and this was 130. i think it all comes to a much less messy decision tree than it seemed in part because they -- haggled it out before, and there could be appellate issues. that's in two years from now. that's a millennium away. trump will either be president or not. in terms of now in their deliberations, i think it was far simplified than i at least

feared it would be for them. >> let me come back to you in another piece of testimony that the jury asked for. we talked about this a little bit at the beginning of the hour. they asked for david pecker's testimony when trump call him and pulled him out of an investor meeting. this is how that goes. first question is do you remember that conversation with donald trump and when it happened? it was the third week of june 2016, so some time. was it after dylan howard had gone out to interview karen mcdougal on june 20th. yes. prosecutor, after the call you had with michael cohen and dylan howard. yes. prosecutor, where were you when you got this call from donald trump? david pecker, i was at an investor's meeting at one of my largest investors meetings in new jersey. prosecutor, how did the call come in? david pecker, oh, i was making a presentation and an update on our business and an assistant in the office came into the conference room and said there's a call from you from donald trump. i left and took the call. prosecutor, could you tell us

about the conversation you had that day with donald trump. pecker, yes, when i got on the phone trump said to me, i said to michael karen is a nice girl. prosecutor, is it true that a mexican -- oh, this is part of trump. is it true a melks kn group is looking to buy her story for $8 million? i said there is absolutely not a mexican group out there to buy it story for $8 million. pecker, i think you should buy the story and take it off the market. prosecutors, when karen mcdougal came up donald trump described her as a nice girl? yes. based on your conversation with mr. trump was he aware of the specifics of mcdougal's description of the affair? yes, i did. >> point number one, by the way, and steinglass really reinforced this to the jury. it's really got the ring of truth. you remember if you were giving a presentation to shareholders and the president of the united states is on the line. you know, pecker, stormy daniels, and of course michael

cohen all have flaws as witnesses, but they try to build it around just those plausible details that give real oomph to a jury, and they can think, sure, they did these things. on the content i don't know if this is what the jury wants it for, but it's saying trump's a liar when he's trying to deny the affair straight out. pecker knows, et cetera, and it's making clear cohen has the exact role cohen says trump has given him, so it really reinforces cohen's testimony as well. >> i also think i have no idea what the jury will decide. i've sought not to get ahead where the jury will end up, but it's so curious to me the only effort that was made coming back to me on cross with pecker was whether or not hope hicks was in or out of the meeting. >> they basically gave up on pecker. even in their closing they said he's telling the truth, that's a huge concession. >> susanne craig, thank you so

much for being here this hour. same place and time tomorrow. the next deadline white house starts after a quick break. don't go anywhere. e white house starts after a quick break don't go anywhere. and year after year, you weathered the storm and just lived with the damage that was left behind. but even after all this time your thyroid eye disease could still change. restoration is still possible. learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at tedhelp.com. (fisher investments) at fisher investments we may look like other money managers, but we're different. (other money manager) you can't be that different. (fisher investments) we are. we have a team of specialists not only in investing, but also also in financial and estate planning and more. (other money manager) your clients rely on you for all that? (fisher investments) yes. and as a fiduciary, we always put their interests first. (other money manager) but you still sell commission -based products, right? (fisher investments) no. we have a simple management fee structured

so we do better when our clients do better. (other money manager) huh, we're more different than i thought! (fisher investments) at fisher investments, we're clearly different. if you spit blood when you brush, it could be the start of a domino effect. new parodontax active gum repair breath freshener. clinically proven to help reverse the four signs of early gum disease. a new toothpaste from parodontax, the gum experts. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ♪ matching your job description. changing your habits is the only way that gets you

to lose the weight. and golo is the plan that's going to help you do that. just take the first step, go to golo.com.

if former president trump is convicted in a court of law would you still support him as your party's choice? please raise your hand if you would? >> someone's got to stop normalizing this conduct, okay? now, whether or not -- whether or not you believe that the criminal charges are right or wrong, the conduct is beneath the office of president of the

united states. >> hi, again, everybody. the hands went up. it's a depressing thought but that hypothetical where all the republican cacandidates were asked if they'd vote for a convicted felon and all but one hand flies up, that's the land we're living in. the republican party other than few exceptions, chris christie one of them has banned the rule of law. and the jury in the first ever criminal trial of an american ex-president sat through deliberations. the decisions those 12 individuals make will determine whether the gop's presumptive nominee could soon be running for president as a convicted criminal. the jury's day just ended in the last hour. they will be back tomorrow morning at 9:30 when they will resume their deliberations. the first day already saw the jurors ring their bell -- it's an actual bell. i confirmed that in the last hour twice.

they asked for testimony for david pecker and michael cohen related to that trump tower meeting in 2015 and the deal that american media inc. made with karen mcdougal. the second request, the second time they rang their bell was for the jury to have the instructions that judge merchan gave them earlier this morning read back to them. over the last several weeks the 12 jurors and 18 alternates have listened to first opening statements then the testimonies of 22 witnesses, then yesterday seven hours of closing statements. and they are now deciding on donald trump's 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up reimbursements for hush money paid to a porn star. as "the new york times" reports, quote, this is one of the rare moments in his life since he was first elected president when trump hadn't been in control of a situation in one way or another. even when we lost the 2020 election, he created an entire apparatus that worked in vain to overturn it. there's not much to do with a

system of rule he doesn't control. in true trumpian fashion the ex-president railing against his case on social media as he and the rest of the world waits for the jury to reach its verdict. it could take them a few hours, a few days, a few week. it's up to them. it's where we start the hour with some of our reporters and friends outside the courthouse for us once again my colleague and correspondent yasmin vossoughian. and we have a full table. former prosecutor, former sdny criminal deputy chief msnbc legal analyst kristi greenberg is back. andrew weissmann is with us and host of the podcast donny deutsch. today high invoked mother theresa saying mother theresa couldn't even beat this. he's so delusional. >> there can be nothing more devastating for him than lack of control or lack of pow, and now

it's kind of game time and he had all the bluster in court and sitting there with his eyes closed or what not, and now it's game time and it could go really bad for him. and i think you're seeing him unravel. rars guilty or not he needs to be out there so he can unfold in front of us. >> unfold is an interesting word. take me inside your understanding of what's happening right now and why it matters so much to both sides. the jury has asked for four pieces of the witness testimony and we've been going through and continue to do so. what's happening between the two legal teams? >> well, they are going through the transcript, and each of them trying to figure out exactly what lines the transcript are responsive to these requests. that's what i was just doing for the last hour as well. and i have to say in looking at them, i -- i mean it's hard to read the tea leaves but it seems like the jury is doing what they should be doing, which is going back tadavid pecker, right?

because they have been instructed you can't rely on, you know, just michael cohen. you need corroboration for that witness. that was part of their instruction. so they're going back and looking at what did david pecker say about that trump tower meeting and what about that call david pecker had alone with karen mcdougal? what exactly was said. and in particular them asking about the life rights and acquiring those life rights, those are really good facts for the prosecution, right? because looking at that, that was all about the life rights where that was part of, she can't tell her story. if we have the life rights, she can't disclose her story to anybody else. if you remember michael cohen said we want to assign this over to us because if something happens to david pecker we want to make sure we get those and she can't tell her story anywhere else. and pecker after doing consultation with lawyers said, no, we're going to rip that up, we're not going to assign it. so that was important to trump. so that piece of it, that fact this was all more of a disguise

and really it wasn't about her writing columns, about her magazine covers. it was about making sure they could kill this story. the fact the jury is focused on that, that's great i think for the state. >> two of the four things they've asked for involve trump directly. i mean one on a phone call with just trump and pecker, cohen nowhere to be seen. and the other as harry litman pointed out in the last hour has cohen, pecker, and trump both in the trump tower meeting. cohen and trump testified to the exact same thing happening inside that meeting. why does that matter? >> again, it matters because they're both telling the same story. you don't just have one witness you need to rely on. you have two people telling you, and we didn't hear anything from donald trump, so there is no other version of that story. again, in that meeting just going back through before we came to the show looking at it like pecker's very clear, i was doing this for the campaign. it was positive stories that favored donald trump, negative

stories about his opponents, and he didn't use the words catch and kill. he said eyes and ears of the campaign. if there was anything negative i was to go to michael cohen so that michael cohen could buy it and make sure it didn't go anywhere. and that's important because this whole idea michael cohen went rogue on this, well, there's a meeting where donald trump knows michael cohen is going to get these stories, and, you know, that is all with this tacit approval there, that he's agreeing with -- he's buying into this agreement. so i think it's a really important piece of evidence for the state, and the fact they're so focused on it, that's among the first requests they've had for testimony, again, seems like a good sign. >> you know, yasmin, i feel like you're someone like me wrestles with your own role in all this. i feel when we look back we may have stumbled to have thrown away the other 21 witnesses and spent so many days talking about michael cohen and the one moment in three days in cross todd blanche seemed to have a gotcha

nano second. what the jury is asking for are four things related seemingly to michael cohen's testimony perhaps what he said about the meeting, and if it syncs up to what david pecker said about the meeting. the jury has gone back to the earliest witness and the witnesses todd blanche has said zero, zilch, nada about. >> the first witness, david pecker, opening the entire case for the prosecution. and nicole, that's exactly what the defense wanted, right? the defense wants this jury to focus solely on michael cohen's testimony. the defense wants the jury to focus only on stormy daniels. you remember todd blanche's closing arguments. he spent about two hours of those 2 hours and 45 minutes of closing arguments on michael cohen and chipping away at michael cohen's credibility. that was the crux of his entire case, of his entire cross-examination throughout the entire trial, right? michael cohen was essentially on trial for these past six weeks

alongside the defendant, donald trump. i just want to bring you inside the courtroom for a moment, nicolle, if i can, because they are still inside that courtroom and they're confirming the pages going to be read tomorrow morning when court is back in session 9:30 in the morning. it seems they've agreed on two of the questions that were asked. first regarding karen mcdougal, the buying of her life rights. second, regarding the meeting that david pecker was in when he got the phone call from donald trump when he was in that investor meeting and trump asked him essentially what he thought about the karen mcdougal situation. the two things that seems as if they still have issues over are the pages in which they agree or do not agree upon when it comes to the trump tower meeting, right? and this is really the crux of where the prosecution has said this whole kind of alleged scheme began. let's take a look back for a moment. if we remember this trump tower meeting in 2016, and kristy got

into it a little bit there, and this is david pecker and donald trump meeting in this alleged 2016 scheme in which they talked about quote-unquote killing stories of donald trump's opponents in the lead up to the 2016 campaign and placing sort of positive stories for the former president as well in which david pecker also testified to looking out about stories of women or women coming forward, and he testified to the fact he knew other individuals woo had run for public office. and oftentimes in those situations women came out of the woodwork, and he was the initial person to bring that up. i think the thing so significant from this ask from the jury if you remember not only from the jury instructions from the judge but also from the prosecution's closing arguments, when they talked about michael cohen's testimony first, the prosecution's closing arguments they said it's not just about michael cohen's testimony, it's about all the evidence that corroborates michael cohen's testimony. and then you think about david pecker, right? so you can imagine a jury

sitting in this room saying does david pecker's testimony corroborate what michael cohen's testimony said about this exact meeting in trump tower in 2015, right? and then there is is the issue of how important this meeting was for setting up really this entire scheme and how the prosecution has alleged this is where it all began. and donald trump was there at the very beginning saying, yes, let's do this, let's move forward. as i looked down at my ipad, i am not, by the way, texting my husband about taco night tonight although it is taco night. >> it's always taco night in my house. >> they are still conferring about those two final questions from the jury. it seems as if they're coming to some conclusion there, but not quite yet as the former president is still inside that courtroom, nicolle. >> and just to bring our viewers

into what yasmin is reporting we're both reading this is not a transcript but what we rely on. these are our journalist colleagues in the courthouse. to yasmin's reporting they have agreed on the response to the jury request for pecker's testimony regarding -- regarding pecker's -- the one they're still haggling over is david pecker's testimony regarding trump tower. and yasmin, even the prosecutor says and this is in quotes, this is tough one. why is this one so hard? >> reporter: why is this one so hard? and i think that's because it's the crux of the prosecution's case. again, as i mentioned this is where it all began, right? pecker was in the room, michael cohen was in the room. you think about the credibility of david pecker. when judge juan merchan was reading the jury instructions, right, he talked about pecker's testimony. he said pecker signed this non pros cushion agreement which we know with the sdny and the fec. he said take that into consideration when it comes to

assessing pecker's credibility. do not take that into consideration when saying donald trump is guilty or not guilty. when he talked about michael cohen he said take into consideration he pled guilty when it comes to assessing his credibility, not to assessing whether donald trump is guilty or not guilty. this is where the promise cushion alleges this entire scheme in the lead up to the pay off of karen mcdougal, of the doorman, and of stormy daniels began. that is why i think there is so many questions, and they have not yet been able to settle on the pages that will be reread for the jury. and they understand how important it is to the jury here because these are the questions they are asking. they already deliberated for 4 1/2 hours, nicolle. they're taking this break, coming back fresh 9:30 in the morning. all of this will be reread to them, and they'll go back into that deliberation room to talk about more what may come next. i know one other question was asked about rereading those jury instructions. we don't have finality as to whether or not the judge is going to read all those jury instructions or a portion of the

jury instructions when they resume court at 9:30 in the morning. >> so andrew weissmann, one of the things they ask for is the testimony of david pecker and michael cohen about the trump tower meeting. i have from the transcripts and some of the pages they both agreed to turn over -- or some of the pages they both agreed to turning over this is the sticking point. this is pecker on director. what did you understand the purpose of the trump tower meeting to be before you actually got there? most of the time when i received a call from michael cohen he wanted something, i assumed they were going to ask. i was going to be asked for something. i didn't know what it was before i got there. prosecutor, can you describe for the jury what happened at the meeting please? david pecker, at the meeting donald trump and michael, they asked me what i can do and what my magazines can do to help the campaign. so thinking about it as i did previously i said what i would do is i would run or publish positive stories about mr. trump and i would publish negative stories about his opponents. and i said that i would also be the eyes and ears of your -- i said i would be the eyes and

ears because i know that 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 if i hear 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 killed 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, the prosecutor asked? answer david pecker, that they would not get published, yes. so then here's what michael cohen testified to. where exactly did the three of you meet? 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 the power of the national enquirer in terms of being located at the cash register of so many supervisor markets and bodegas, if we can place so many positive stories about mr. trump that would be beneficial. if we could place negative

stories about other candidates that would also be beneficial. was there something else mr. pecker said he could do to help mr. trump's presidency. michael cohen, yes. what in substance did he say? michael cohen, what he said is he could keep an eye out for anything negative about mr. trump and he would help us know in advance what was coming out and try and stop it from coming out. prosecutor, and who did he say he would get in touch with if he was able to identify those type of stories? michael cohen, the answer was me. mr. trump also. knowing my relationship with david trump said the two of you should work together. i mean, sounds like the same meeting to me. >> here are reasonsful you were the prosecution you'd like this note. there's still a long way to go so with that caveat. so the person who uses the phrase "kill" david pecker, not michael cohen. it doesn't really matter whether they're calling it catch and

kill. that is what you just read from both of them. two, there's such great evidence about cohen and his role. you made this point when this came up when david pecker is on the stand, i still remember this is principal to principal and michael cohen is an underling. he's a staffer. and that comes out loud and clear, but he's also trump's staffer. he is not rogue. this is his person, and it's happening in front of him. so this is not sort of like some meeting where trump can sort of deny it. so that sort of atmospheric is great. and then i love the piece where pecker makes it clear that he's really part of this effort, that it's not just these four amygos. they have small staff, so i was the expanded staff for them. just to be clear, this completely belies what i think

just this offensive argument that todd blanche made just as a citizen i'm reacting, not in terms of what he has to do as a defense lawyer, but the idea that this is normal. this is -- "the new york times" is not meeting with a campaign saying let me talk to you about how i can help and how i'm going to be your eyes and ears. and so that idea, all three of those things are just wonderful and obviously from the perspective of michael cohen's credibility, it really fits with the idea of you know what, he may have lied a lot in the past, but that doesn't mean he's lying about everything. and here is a good example of it where you know it's the truth. they didn't challenge what david pecker said. michael cohen said the exact same thing. >> and it's the note judge merchan gave them that to take michael cohen's testimony and use it you have to corroborate it, right? >> yeah. and completely -- just to be clear that's a really low burden.

i mean it is a true under new york law. it's not true federally that new york law you cannot convict someone solely, but the emphasis is solely on accomplice testimony, but you need some corroboration, and here and the whole point of this closing it was to say credibly you don't even need that. obviously there's corroboration. >> we have a little more information about the pages that the jurors asked to be seen. we'll read those to you as well. we have to sneak in a quick break to find them. there's so many. we'll have more reporting from the courthouse as well and our panel here. the fate of donald trump now rests in the hands of the 12 men and women in the jury. they're set to begin their deliberations at 9:30 in the morning. plus, facing growing pressure for having flags associated with the insurrectionists flying above his homes. supreme court justice samuel alito today is responding.

he's refusing to recuse himself before any january 6th case before the court. how he's explaining that decision and the credibility problem that persists at the supreme court. later in the hour. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. no mask! no hose! just sleep. give me this thing. where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. so this is pickleball? it's basically tennis for babies, but for adults. it should be called wiffle tennis. pickle! yeah, aw! whoo! ♪♪ these guys are intense. we got nothing to worry about. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled.

that's a pretty good burn, right? got him. good game. thanks for coming to our clinic, first one's free.

i don't want you to move. thanks for coming to our clinic, i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight?

sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity. we're all back. kristy, what's happening right now i understand the judge is hearing arguments from both legal teams about which pages the jury will be provided tomorrow. it will be responsive to these four questions, but take me inside one what's happening, but, two what do you think the significance is of those questions? >> yeah, it seems at least with

those trump tower meeting they are having an argument about where it ends. one side wants more information and more context to be provided than the other does, so they're kind of haggling that out. and they have to agree, essentially the judge has to make a decision about what goes to the jury, what will be read back. but looking -- taking a step back from what they requested, one of the things joshua steinglass did i think so effectively in this closing was to say when we're talking about the piece you have to focus on with the unlawful influence in the 2016 election, that agreement, you don't need michael cohen for that. go to david pecker. and what do they do? they're going to david pecker, and they're asking for his testimony about his trump tower meeting where the prosecution has said that's where the conspiracy was borne. the other thing that he said in his closing was he wanted the jury to think about that call between donald trump and david pecker. no michael cohen in that call, just between the two of them

about keeping karen mcdougal's story from being published. and he said they weren't talking about jump starting mcdougal's career. this was about protecting the campaign. if you go back to that call he said it's easy to lose sight of the significance of this call with all the documents in this case. so he made a real point in his closing about how important this call was to showing that this transaction is an unlawful corporate contribution from ami to trump's campaign. look here, and it's the first thing they're asking for. so, again, i think the state has to be happy that they have clearly listened to the closing, and they are at least looking at the evidence he's directing them to. where they come out with that, you know, that remains to be seen, but they are following, you know, what he's asked them to look at, those pieces of evidence. >> one of the things that, you know, if you cover the michael cohen side of the ledger, right, and you've helped us cover it but you've also lived through some of this history with him is

how much time he spent, 25 meetings with the prosecutors understanding that at a legal level and human level his account would need to be corroborated. and it is clear once the trial started, and it started with pecker and it wept through keith davidson and it wept through the c sparn archivest and wept through phone records and e-mails, and canceled checks and wept through the person who got the checks and wept through -- it is clear that was an extraordinary amount of reverse engineering done. and i wonder -- you know, we sort of talked elliptically around that process because there were phases michael was more forthcoming and phases he seemed to heed the prosecution's admonition not to talk about it. >> look, i keep struggling with and "the new york times" is my paper of record. >> i'm sorry. >> they were continuing covering

how horrible michael was doing and all the gotcha moments. he testified for 25 hours, and i didn't even see that gotcha moment. we're so caught up with michael cohen and what he did and didn't do, he was a great witness. and even in steinglass' closing that one call where he said, okay, let's duplicate the call, and it was 49 seconds, not a minute and 39 seconds, which common sense i do the same thing. i'm not a prosecutor but okay -- so i'm still not sure where this might -- and obviously todd blanche spent 2 1/2 of his 3 hours on michael cohen. i'm still not sure where this incredible noncredibility of michael cohen has been established. so even to the point of you don't need him, i'm still not sure he is this anti-smoking gun in any way, shape, or form. >> here's the piece, and i tried to sort of nibble around this with yasmin a little bit. here's a piece we may have gotten wrong, and we as a press i think have to stipulate and have some humility even in the moment we're covering a story we

may be dead wrong. we may be dead wrong cohen was as troublesome in the jury's eyes as we've covered him as a press. we just don't know. >> looking at this trump universe, he's a trump character. >> correct. >> it's like is he a boy scout? no. does he sometimes tell stories? yes. i think you have to lens it through this kind of alice in wonderland world there so he kind of goes with the woodwork. he makes sense in all this. he's not an outlier. he's right in the middle. he's in the belly of the beast. >> i think this idea, i think i called him a staffer because there's something if you worked in politics where trump wasn't a politician but he saw himself as a principal. pecker wasn't a sort of classically trained journalist, but he was had head of a news outlet trump cared about. and the two principals they hatched the scheme together. cohen was in the room as a

staffer. >> i'm going to say this as someone who's known him for 20 years, nothing was done in that organization without donald trump's approval, nothing. this was as hands on an operation. michael cohen did not have a lease. this was not a laissez-faire kind of thing, nobody did. his kids don't. put that against the backdrop of everything and obviously you can't prove that, you can't prove 20 years of behavior, but nothing -- is this was an important thing. i told the bathtub story last time i was here. nothing -- i'm not going to make people sit through that again, but nothing was done without donald trump's knowledge and approval. >> and this is something you know if you know chris christie who talked about it wasn't a tight-lipped business. he was a guy who ran his office and spent a lot of his time circling articles in "the new york times" and sending them. >> it's a little crappy law office. they parade around his office.

he comes in and sits at his deck desk. this is not an empire. this is not levels. this the opposite of a bureaucracy. >> yeah, let me just bring our viewers up to speed what's happening right now. trump has left the building. he walked through the hallway. he didn't have much to say to the press, which is different for him. he may have lots to say, but he may be spent from all his tweets today, which were outrageous. andrew weissmann, on the known unknown, if you will, maybe we don't know how the jury experienced michael cohen. >> we don't. but it is worth noting so kristy and i come from a background where we put on the stand people who have a lot of baggage. now, the reason you hear from us, you know, the problems is because the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. and so it's not sort of like, oh, he seems fine or, yes, i think he's telling the truth here. that's not going to win a case

at that standard. >> and the judge gave them an instruction that they can't take the word of an accomplice unless it's corroborated. >> exactly. so that's why from the state's perspective there's all of this effort to say -- to deal with that. but every single day in the southern district of new york and the eastern district of new york there are witnesses who take the stand who have admitted murders, who have lied under oath, who have done everything in between. and prosecutors job before they bring a case is to figure out do they believe the person and why, and how are they going to present the case and how are they going to be able to show the jury that they're right, that this person should be believed and what is the corroboration. i think that is the reason people have criticized josh steinglass for going on so long, but that is reason he's doing it. because michael cohen fits in that category. i agree he's definitely donald

trump's person. and the read back is going to show that, but that doesn't mean you don't have to meet that standard. >> sure. >> you have to do it, but i'll just say one of the unique things about when you're a prosecutor dealing with cooperating witnesses is people think prosecutors are just like everyone's bad on the other side. and with prosecutors and cooperating witnesses you have to understand where they're coming from, and also the trajectory michael cohen is going through in terms of coming to terms with sort of self-knowledge in terms of what he's dealing with, and that is an imperfect process for all of us. unless you're mother theresa you have that -- so, you know, maybe michael cohen hadn't finished that process, but you know what? he's come a lot further than the defendant. >> yeah, i'll give you the last word on this, kristy. it seems if jurors were robots,

you could -- you could sit here and predict what they're going to do. they're humans, too. you have no idea how they account for a witness who comes with baggage but seems to i think as andrew is suggesting be on a journey. >> i thought -- again, i was a big fan of the prosecution's closing. i thought it was masterful. and the way he handled michael cohen in particular is masterful. at one point he says to the jury you don't have to like him, you don't have to go into business with him. we're not asking you to do that. you have to believe he did the jobs nobody else wanted to do, and the very reasons that donald trump liked him because he was willing to lie. he was willing to cheat. like that's the reason they're telling you not to believe him now, but that's who he was and that's who donald trump chose. and the part about him being angry, you know, steinglass did really well with this, too. he was like, yeah, because this is the guy who escaped justice. michael cohen served this time and this is the guy who got away. so, yeah, he's angry. and i felt like that ability to

cut through the noise and just appeal to people's emotions and common sense like how would you feel if you were in this situation, i just thought he couldn't have done better. >> i thought he did a very good job -- i say this with no legal expertise but someone who's been on a jury and someone who's covered this story for a long time he said you see what i see. you didn't see any sex with these women. i thought stipe gls said i see what you see, we didn't get him from the witness store, which i love. and i borrowed the anchor store from that. i appreciate that sometime said it's human intelligence, not all legal strategic. >> absolutely. >> thank you for talking with us on this first day. we don't know how many days there's going to be of jury deliberations. thank you so much for starting us off this hour. there's still a ton to unpack on the trial. there's a ton of other news to get to we haven't dealt with.

alito is next. don't go anywhere. o is next. don't go anywhere. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire ( ♪♪ ) my name is jaxon, and i have spastic cerebral palsy. it's a mouthful. one of the harder things is the little things that i need help with: getting dressed, brushing your teeth, being able to go out with your friends by yourself. those are hard because you don't want help,

but you need it. children like jaxon need continued support for the rest of their lives. whoa, whoa, whoa. and you can help. please join easterseals right now, with your monthly gift. i'm almost there. the kids that you are helping, their goal is to be as independent as they can. these therapies help my son to achieve that goal. easterseals offers important disability and community services that can change a life forever. please, go online, call or scan the qr code right now with your gift of just $19 a month. it really does make a difference. strengthening with easterseals helped me realize i can get through hard things. don't give up. keep trying. even better! please visit helpeasterseals.com,

call or scan the qr code on your screen with your gift of $19 a month and we'll send you this t-shirt as a thank you. mother: your help and your support, the need for it is endless. jaxon: thank you, 'cause there's a lot of people with disabilities out there. people like me. please join easterseals with your monthly gift right now. ( ♪♪ )

in a move he probably sees as brazen but critics may soon as foolish and shortsighted supreme court justice samuel alito today put himself over any and all concerns of his perceived lack of impartiality, informing law makes in two striking letters that he will

not, i repeat not recuse himself from cases involving the deadly january 6th insurrection. this despite calls to do so over the fact not disputed that his wife on two occasions flew flags at their two homes with symbols used by the january 6th insurrectionists on that day. justice alito fully and completely in black and white blaming his wife for both those incidents. claiming this, quote, as soon as i saw the upside down american flag i asked my wife to take it down, but for several days she refused. my wife and i own our virginia home jointly. she therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit, and there were no additional steps that i could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly. he adds that, quote, my wife is fond of flying flags, i am not, end quote. what? what? who says that about their wife or the upside down insurrection

flag? one of the nine human beings on the supreme court, i guess. so the house democrats are now responding asking the chief -- chief justice john roberts in a letter this afternoon how he plans to deal with this, how he plans to enforce the court's ethics code. because as they write, quote, adopting a code of ethics and failing to enforce it only reinforces the perception the supreme court operates without consequences. joining our conversation ed from slate. and michael steele is here. back at the table former u.s. attorney harry litman. harry clerked for supreme court justices thurgood marshall and anthony kennedy. what i want to say i can't say even from my potty mouth broadcast here, but what is

this? let's take the supreme court and the institution whose faith among republicans has plunged further and faster tathan any institution in public life. let's pip that for a second. who talks about their spouse like that? >> nicolle, we know who wears the flags in that family that's for sure because it clearly ain't him. i think the brother needs to check how he's putting on his swags every morning. look, it just -- that is some of the lamest sort of throwing the spouse under the bus -- i fold her to take it down but he refused to. oh, you guys didn't have conversation about this. you didn't impress upon her the symbolism of the upside down flag irrespective of the current connotation of it in the context of january 6th. before that, it is a symbol that the country's in distress. no one flies the flag upside

down especially if they get into an argument with a neighbor because that was the whole premise of this. i saw a sign in the yard that said something terrible about donald trump, i got into an argument with a neighbor, then i go in the house and then i fly my flag upside down? i just had an incident of road rage. what do i do, come home and fly the flag upside down? come on, stop it. you knew damn well what it was. you knew what it wept. you are aligned politically and ideologically with it. because if you weren't, no matter you would have gone and taken the flag down and had your wife hit you upside the head with the flagpole letter. but that's not what happened here. so stop stretching credulity and thinking we're going to believe this crap coming out of your mouth about it when that's not true. we know it's not true. yeah, we know who wears the flags in that household. >> i guess, dahlia, why i started here is because what

alito is doing substptively is saying, no, i'll not recuse from january 6th cases, but what alito is saying to us in his defense of crouch, which i don't know a lot of things but i know a politically inspired defensive crouch where your hatred for the media that has the audacity to cover you as one of nine human beings who sits on the united states supreme court is boiling out of you and sort of spilling out of you. what alito is saying is i can't have independence to make my own decisions on my own property, but trust me i'll be independent on the supreme court. he is blowing out of the water any argument he has the capacity to be neutral and unbiased in a decision by saying i couldn't assert my independence in my own home. >> right. and it's almost more depressing than that. look, i think michael makes the correct point, which is like with perfect immunity from

consequences comes perfect silliness, right? this is -- doesn't pass anyone's laugh test. it's like he didn't try. it's like he asked some kid on the street to write a defense. there's no sense this is meaningful or serious to him other than grievance, which as you say very meaningful, very serious. and i think the thing that is really fascinating to me is both that he throws his wife under the bus three times -- three times he's thrown his wife under the bus. i guess his wife likes flags. ginni thomas likes going to the ellipse on january 6th. like these wives are complicated feminists. but i think the most astounding part of this is that he asserts these boundless first amendment rights for his wife, boundless property rights. she's the co-owner of the property, she's the sole owner of the beach house, and these boundless rights for her to have

autonomy and dignity from the man who gave you dobbs is almost gob smacking, right? this is a man who doesn't think any american women have the dignity and atonmy to regulate their own lives. but his wife that's different. he can't stand up to her because her dignity and autonomy knows no bounds. >> he's also the person whose conduct personal and professional to dahlia's point is most closely associated with the things the public says are sort of behind the tabs in the polls. i think we have gallop and a second one that shows the court at its approval rating the lowest since the question has been asked by pollsters. it's under 40% of americans who have faith in the court. there you go. 61% of all americans in the marquette poll and i believe that's a tick lower where gallop has it, but they haven't asked it recently especially since the story has come out. so this one individual of nine is most responsible for the

decision. he authored the dobbs decision that i think has 67-93% opposition from the public when asked in different ways in polls as well as the ethics breaches. he's the guy who flew private and said i didn't sit in this seat today. >> it's an aggravating factor. and not just dobbs but the mischief he's making with immunity. he's done it several times. i think even leaving that aside this is an extraordinarily grave breach. it's much more i think than -- we worry -- there's the confounding factor of crazy spouses, but that's not what's going on here, and his explanation really misses the point. he knew and it stayed up there. and this isn't like, well, we worry when somebody's being supported financially. that might somehow influence their view on the substance. this is the view of the substance. this is screaming from his house

stop the steal, and it's not only the most burning issue of the day, it's an issue on which some people are telling the truth and other people it's fiction, it's there is no steal. so for him to embrace it in this way and now not understand that it's about his knowing it and portraying it to the public, it's a joke that the public would say, oh, that's just that crazy martha. of course not. this is their homes and this is screaming now what alito's views are, and it stays for days. i think it's the most serious breach that we've seen because it goes directly to his views, his bias, in the most important cases pending. >> well, that's incredibly profound, and i hadn't heard it articulated that way. he's one of the nine people on the supreme court and he can't clearly see the truth of the election of 2020. >> again, it's not even like a pro-life flag. it's stop the steal.

that's a flipping outrage. >> i guess stay with me. we have to rumble on the other side of a break he's saying that he wanted it taken down. why did he want it taken down if there's nothing wrong with it? we'll be right back. there's nothing wrong with it? we'll be right back. 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! why did he want it taken down if to activate ything.

why did he want it taken down if oooooohhh... automatic sashimi! earn cash back that automatically adjusts to how you spend with the citi custom cash® card. [mind blown explosion noise] we love being outside, but the sun makes our deck and patio too hot to enjoy. now thanks to our new sunsetter retractable awning, we can select full sun or instant shade in just 60 seconds. it's 20 degrees cooler under the sunsetter and we get instant protection from harmful uv rays and sun glare. for pricing starting at less than $1,000, transform your outdoor living space into a shaded retreat your family will love! when you call, we'll rush you a special $200 discount certificate with your free awning idea kit! you'll get your sunsetter for as little as $799. but, this is a limited time offer! for over 20 years, sunsetter has been the bestselling retractable awning in america! call now for this free awning idea kit packed with great awning solutions that will let you enjoy your deck or patio much more often.

plus, get this $200 discount certificate that will bring you your sunsetter for as little as $799. but this is a limited time offer. call now! sunsetters are backed with up to a 10-year limited warranty! more than 1 million families in america own and love their sunsetter. now, you too can discover why “life is better under a sunsetter...” it's like putting an extension on your home. and talk about options: choose motorized or manual and for just a little extra, add led lighting for evening enjoyment. there are so many incredible styles to choose from in our free awning idea kit. get a custom-built awning, without the custom-built price! call now to get the whole sunsetter story. you'll get this free awning idea kit. plus, a $200 discount certificate and there's no obligation. with sunsetter, you'll create the ultimate outdoor living space. perfect for entertaining friends. call now for your free awning idea kit, with local dealer info and $200 discount certificate.

“life is better under a sunsetter!”act now and save! hi, i'm david, and i lost 92 pounds on golo. with local dealer info and $200 discount certificate. my life partner connie and i were in really rough shape regarding our health. and our doctors told us that we needed to lose weight. i saw a golo commercial and i thought, "we really need to try this." as the weeks went by, the weight came off. we learned to make healthy choices and be supportive of each other. together, we've lost 170 pounds. golo worked for us. since losing weight on golo, i'm feeling grateful and hopeful about the future. (energizing music) . we're all back. dahlia, "the times" is also reporting the police were called in based on this altercation between the alitos and a neighbor. i guess you can add, bad neighbor to the résumé.

>> i mean, that "times" story from yesterday and they've been so dogged on this, both called into question justice alito's timeline, calls into question the nature of the harassment. the neighbor didn't even know about the flag. so, i think the one other thing i just want to add to harry's really smart point is that one of these two flags, they're not just insurrection january 6th flags. one of them is a, sort of, really well-known kind of christian, violent, insurgent nationalism flag. this flag is no joke. so, in addition to the january 6th cases that harry notes are pending at the court, we have two massive abortion cases pending at the court in which the rights of pregnant people are being subordinated to the desire of physicians or states

not to treat them in emergencies where they might die. so, it's not just that this inflects on january 6th and the insurrection and how justice alito has prejudged those cases. i mean, this letter is a prejudgment of those cases. it also inflects on his willingness to fly a flag that is clearly aligned with a religious viewpoint. he says that in his letter that his wife flew it possibly for religious or political reasons. and i think it's just really important to say this is not just a system of, sort of, violent insurrection. it's a system of really frightening religious fundamentalism that is taking root at the court that is also be prejudged by these flags. >> can i put an exclamation point on that? the big word here is "prejudged." so, we are left with deep doubt about whether his judgment is legally driven or politically driven, whether he's a warrior for the right and that's what

informs his views. that's the antithesis of what a supreme court justice is supposed to be. and it's extremely hard to have confidence when he is screaming out these sensitive views. and though he tried to say that his answers are embarrassing, but he tried to make it seem as if he had nothing to do with it. the important point is, did he know? now it's clear from "the times" reporting that diane mentioned, he did know. everything else is irrelevant. he knew and this kept happening. >> michael steele, we have spent nine years covering the failure of reliance on our norms. trump happens, grab them in the bleep happens, tax release happens, we scream, and nothing really changes. we haven't really rumbled with the death of norms in terms of a court that doesn't care. they don't care. we cover a drop in the polls like it's a crisis for the court. what if it isn't? what if they don't give a rat's behind that no one in the public trusts them anymore?

>> well, they don't, likely. why do we say that, nicolle? because we look at the ham-handed, half-assed ethics rules that they put together that alito doesn't want to follow and he doesn't want to follow because he knows they're meaningless. they govern themselves. you've heard alito say, the congress has no control over us. they can't tell us what to do. duh. who writes the check for your paycheck every week? you don't write that check. the people do. and they do it through the united states congress. so, yeah, we do have some control about what you do and how you behave. we've never had this in the past two worry about because the men and women who ascended to the bench had a sense of what their responsibilities and purpose was all about. it was to uphold the constitution and to apply it blindly in every instance. and when you run a follow that,

to step back in that role, because in this moment in this case, you are compromised. this justice is saying, to hell with that. i don't give a damn about that. so what my wife flew a flag upside-down. that's her property. oh, yeah, i live in the house and we break bread together but it doesn't matter. it isn't a reflection of me. yeah, it is. you don't get to parse it that way. that's not an escape hatch for you. so, the question now that the congress is sending their letter to the court is, chief justice roberts, what say you? so, we'll wait and see what he says. >> we need had to come back and spend some more time on this, as dahlia said. this "times" reporting and the clash with the neighbor. it's really gritty is the only word i can think of. thank you so much for spending time with us. another break. we'll be right back. with us another break. we'll be right back.

(vo) if you have graves' disease... ...and blurry vision, you need clear answers. people with graves' could also get thyroid eye disease, or t-e-d, which may need a different doctor. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com. [introspective music] recipes. recipes that are more than their ingredients. ♪ [smoke alarm] recipes written by hand

and lost to time... can now be analyzed and restored using the power of dell ai. preserving memories and helping to write new ones. ♪ what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com. hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ♪ i don't ever want to go back to wearing a 4xl shirt or not being able to climb up stairs without taking a break. so i'm committed to golo for life. a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile.

and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today! thank you so much for letting us into your homes once again. we are