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 grateful.

"the beat" with ari melber starts right now. hi, ari. >> hi, nicolle. i'm going to pull a minilawrence. >> i was trying to give you your seconds back. >> we have a full breakdown of all these jury questions tonight, which is so interesting. that's what we're going to do. >> i can't wait. i'm going to get upstairs fast enough so i don't miss anything. have a great show. >> thank you. thank you to nicolle. and welcome to "the beat." i'm ari melber. today for the first time ever, donald trump's fate in this criminal trial is now in the hands of a jury of his peers. the presides judge giving the standard and detailed instructions to these 12 jurors in a case that's anything but standard. we know that. and tonight we can report several brand-new developments from the jury's first day of deliberations, which lasted over four hours. we have now gleaned new clues about what they're discussing, what they're considering, what exact evidence and testimony they are focused on today, and

presumably leading into tomorrow when they hear more of it. we can even tell you the kind of instructions that they want to make sure they're reviewing. so, our breakdown on that new information is top story in our broadcast tonight. and here is now today's process played out. the nation riveted. and on a collective verdict watch. >> the historic criminal trial of a former president moves from the courtroom to the jury room. >> we have finally reached the beginning of the end. >> if today is the day the jury gets instructions. >> jury instructions will be delivered by judge merchan to these 12 jurors. >> things just got serious it feels like. >> it does. >> the gravity of this moment cannot be overstated. >> there are four requests from the jury. >> this is interesting and let's get into it. we now have the first clues about what they're discussing. >> the one thing i do think is good for, potentially for the

state here, is asking to have michael cohen's testimony read back. >> so, this is all happening late into the day. the judge read aloud the formal jury instructions and then took about -- you over an hour to just do that, telling the jurors their task to make an important decision about another member of the community, this defendant being like any other, and that they operate here now as judges of the facts, deciding the guilt or innocence, the not guilty possibility. this jury has been in court for 22 days. it's heard 16 days of testimony under strict rules to avoid discussing any of this with other jurors and other people. and remember, even if you're a little skeptical and wondering how this all goes down, the jurors are strictly overseen by the court. the judge is there, along with officers and secret service and frankly more armed officers and bailiffs than usual. it is the kind of environment that makes most people compliant. these people have also been

screened. they're also observed by the press and other court attendees. i say that to mention there's been no indication that those rules have been breached, the rules saying these jurors must think and take in the evidence but not discuss this with anyone until now. the information we have indicates the jury's first conversations with each other about evidence began today when they sat down together and were marking all these type of things. i can tell you that began what we think is their first ever discussion of donald trump's guilt or innocence, his conduct, his personal life, his campaign life. it all began when deliberations commenced at 11:37 a.m. new york time. trump was seen standing up and, sort of, grimacing, according to accounts. he also made some remarks today reiterating his claim that the case is basically rigged. and then -- then what? everyone just waited. and waited. and that's the system.

and that could have gone on a lot longer than this. we could have been waiting for days and not heard a peep. it is only those 12 citizens and what they choose to do. so, people waited outside the court on them. lawyers waited inside the court. people around the nation wondering when a verdict may come. people with signs and placards and demonstrations on both sides of this thing. that verdict watch will continue when the jury reconvenes tomorrow morning. but late in the day, as i mentioned, as nicollel mentioned, as we showed in that package of late news clips, late in the day we got the first look into what the jurors are indeed thinking about. this jury rang the bell, and they had four questions. and now we know at least some of what they're pondering. and it's all about the prosecutor's theory of this case against trump. the jurors requested testimony about tabloid publisher david pecker's call with trump. this was in june 2016. very simple, very important. they want to review what this

man you see here, this longtime trump ally and powerful media guy, david pecker, said under oath about that call. that goes to corroborating whether there was an illegal campaign plot. and he's an eyewitness. and i'll tell you before i go any further, we know what pecker testified. remember, the jury has a lot of sway and influence here, but they don't have the access to all the information we do under the rules i mentioned. so, they have to ask to get the testimony back. they're not supposed to go home and, you know, google it. they don't go outside and talk to the various people or press assembled there. i can tell you that from watching. but we know what he said. mr. pecker testified under oath that he and trump were discussing how trump spoke to cohen, and they discussed how the model, karen mcdougal, was a, quote, nice girl. why does that matter? well, it goes to how this tabloid secretly helped trump ultimately silence mcdougal. the jury also asked for pecker's testimony on conversations with

the trump camp about acquiring her story. and that's through a thing they call buying life rights. but that's the second question, and that's also about david pecker. and remember the d.a. argued all of that was bad for trump because of evidence showing that pecker's tabloid paid mcdougal a buyout to high her story about trump. and the argument -- and again, this isn't proven. the jury is asking these questions to look into it. the argument by prosecutors is pecker did it for trump. he didn't do it for himself. he didn't do it for the tabloid. this isn't about reviewing his business or personal ethics. this is about whether he conspired to commit a campaign crime. and prosecutors had evidence that pecker thought and trump said and it was all arranged that trump would pay him back for that money, basically that this was a trump thing for mcdougal and he needed someone else to engineer it. that plan was ditched when the lawyer said that would cost more

in legal fees than pecker would make back in the reimbursement. pecker testified he had been warned to not take trump's money there. that's just two of the requests that show what the jury is thinking about. let me break this down for you with what it means. this show is jury is at least starting where the prosecutors did, with pecker, remember, as the first witness. and with the tabloid plot as the key thing, the lens to understand the later secret schemes, the payments, and what the d.a. calls these campaign crimes. and the other two requests we got late in the day go down that straight road. the third request zeros in on the catch and kill plot. you see the same face. that's on purpose. we're not trying to make this any more varied or have any more characters than the jury's asking. the jury's first three questions are all about pecker, the first

big witness against trump. and they want to know and review what pecker testified about that trump tower meeting to hatch the catch and kill plot. now, you might say, gosh, ari, well, they keep asking about the d.a.'s case. do they believe it? are they ready to convict? i'm going to be very clear. we do not know if all the jurors or most of the jurors or some of the jurors accept the d.a.'s case that those pecker plots became a campaign crime. we don't know if they may be asking about this just because of some holdouts on the jury are arguing for defendant trump or saying, yeah, i remember, but it wasn't really a formal plot. these other folks might be saying, look, look at what he said. we do know that trump, a longtime trump ally, did give that damning testimony about the meeting. he left little debate that the tabloid would run positive stories on trump, negative stories on the opponents, and he'd be eyes and ears for the stuff trump wasn'ted buried.

i'm bringing back the testimony. that's the stuff the jury is likely to hear tomorrow when they read it back. trump's own ally, who doesn't have frankly the same credibility problems that michael cohen might, gave that testimony. and that brings us to today's fourth and final jury question. they also want to review michael cohen's testimony about that very same trump tower meeting. we know that cohen confirmed the meeting. and then in this instance, his testimony would appear to line up with pecker and that other corroboration. and he said pecker would keep an eye out for anything negative about trump and he'd be able to help us, know in advance what was coming out, and try to stop it from coming out. that last part is crucial. that's where the d.a. says the criminal activity began to form. and remember, most members of the media don't go around burying stories for politicians, let alone buying them or talking about getting reimbursed for

them. and that's not a left/right thing. that's just in general. tabloids can support criticized candidates, like any other press. some tabloids even run misleading stories, and that's not always a crime. you don't typically go to jail for defamation. but when the d.a. said the tabloid started acting as a secret arm of the campaign, spending money that should have been donations but were hidden from the government and the public, that is where prosecutors say trump committed a crime. that's where they take it back to pecker in trump tower. that's why they say trump wanted the daniels payment secret, precisely to hide the other crimes, which he knew were ongoing. so, this jury ends its first day of deliberations discussing these key moments from the prosecution's argument, catch and kill to help trump. now, that is not a pure win for the d.a. but it's not bad either for prosecutors. because remember there have been five weeks, 80 hours of

testimony, 22 witnesses, 200 pieces of evidence. we count all this stuff. so, they have options. if they were only asking about michael cohen's credibility or only asking for testimony that went to compliants that trump's lawyers made across exams that showed problems with the d.a.'s witnesses, that would suggest a very different start. instead we can see now for the first time -- and this is new. this is kind of exciting and interesting if you're trying to follow the case -- the very first time we hear what the jury is thinking about. the jury has diversity professionally, ideologically, and otherwise. but they have come together and in their group process, they are topically, logically following at least the start of the path the d.a. laid out. follow the money, follow the tabloids, follow the cover-up. and the tabloid meeting led to the very actions that formed the conspiracy. we are here now. we are not here to prejudge what the jury does.

indeed, if you believe in the rule of law, we're following it precisely to see what outcome we get from the jury of peers. but we are learning for the first time that at least on day one they are back to the beginning of the d.a.'s case. and whether this cover-up became a crime. former sdny chief david kelly is our special guest on all of this in 90 seconds. all of this in 90 seconds. no, my denture's uncomfortable! dracula, let's fight back against discomfort. with new poligrip power max hold & comfort. it has superior hold plus keeps us comfy all day with it's pressure absording layer. time for a bite! if your mouth could talk it would ask for... poligrip. so, what are you thinking? i'm thinking... (speaking to self) about our honeymoon. what about africa? safari? hot air balloon ride? swim with elephants? wait, can we afford a safari? great question. like everything, it takes a little planning. or, put the money towards a down-payment... ...on a ranch ...in montana ...with horses let's take a look at those scenarios.

j.p. morgan wealth management has advisors in chase branches and tools, like wealth plan to keep you on track. when you're planning for it all... the answer is j.p. morgan wealth management. power e*trade's easy to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans 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

you're convinced now this was an effort to do a favor for donald trump in the last few months of the presidential race. >> unfortunately, yes. >> was "the national inquirer" acting as the arm of donald trump and michael cohen? and if so, is there something wrong with that? >> we strongly suspect they were. >> karen mcdougal and her lawyer over the years discussing what has all come out. we're now joined, as we get these new jury questions for the first time today, for the former district attorney of the southern district of new york, david kelly, the district that handled michael cohen's leadership. full disclosure, my former boss. this is a big case. what do you think when you hear these jury questions? >> i always think it's a fun jury game if you're not one of the lawyers involved. a fun parlor game to figure out what this means. you hit the nail on the head.

this could be one juror. this could be a bunch of jurors. my guess is there are a bunch of jurors zeroing in on the prosecution's case. if they believe pecker -- we talked earlier at the earlier stage of this trial, if they believe this story pecker laid out, that's really the heart of this conspiracy. and going back and hearing that testimony, i think, if i'm a prosecutor, i'm feeling pretty good. >> yeah. >> and then bringing in cohen into it and kind of comparing it. instead of leaving cohen to the end. i think they move along at a pretty good pace here. >> you think they're moving at a good pace. you also are seeing, as you said, careful caution, some of them when it's not. we don't have any unanimity on the questions, right? but some of them got the point that david pecker, who likes trump, who stuck his neck out for him, who's done things for him, still back then called his lawyer and said, hey, he's going to reimburse me for all this campaign plotting stuff we're doing. his lawyer said, do not do that.

as i mentioned, there's been many, many days of evidence. zeroing in on that shows that somebody on the jury understands that's bad for trump. >> yeah because they get the story. the whole story. and the felony here comes down to the campaign plot. and i think that this shows that somebody or some people or all of them or most of them or how many we don't know get it. >> trump tower meeting is not itself a crime, right? >> no. >> they met. they talk about this stuff, right? burying stories while i mentioned -- >> i mean, it's part of the conspiracy. >> right. part of the conspiracy. but if you stopped on that day and no other action occurred. >> no, that's fine. >> we wouldn't be here. >> right. >> burying stories is not something most media do on a regular basis. sometimes we learn something and don't run it out of fairness. but you don't just take orders from some billionaire or some politician and say, oh, we're going to help you hide that. the pecker and cohen testimony about the trump tower meeting,

what is that likely to be for the jury's benefit that they want both? they didn't say, oh, i just want cohen's view, i want pecker's view. they want both. >> i think the first thing -- they go to pecker and they get the whole story. there's corroboration out there, some of which is cohen. and if they can believe pecker and then they bring in cohen and cohen and pecker's testimony kind of interlocked, then they're going to go a lot with cohen. they're not going to reject cohen out of hand, i think. but, you know, tea leaves. >> it is tea leaves. but it's four tea leaves. it's not one tea leaf. >> no, right. >> they also, as i told viewers, they might want the jury instructions again. they're figuring out, do you want the whole hour? do you want part of it? do you read anything to them wanting that this early? sometimes people want that later, no? >> true, you never really know when you're going to get the jury instruction request from a jury. sometimes you don't. i think it's -- i think up front, it's probably a good sign

that they're moving through this pretty quickly. and it will be interesting to see if they ask for a particular portion of the jury charges opposed to the whole thing. but, again, i don't know, asking early on -- >> that's fair, that's fair. we look at the jury's make-up, and there's always these things we protect about them, including obviously their identities. they were asked about how they get news. this is who they are and this is their professions. when you look at how they got their news, many are varied. some people said google, which means you don't check the news that often. that's fine. no offense taken, david. but some say, oh, he goes to trump's truth social. okay. jury one says he clicks around. he does msnbc, full disclosure, take it or leave it, fox news, new york times. looking at this and then thinking about these questions, can you imagine the back and

forth? could you imagine maybe the truth social or the fox person saying, yeah, i don't know, i don't know that it was a full -- a lot of people talk like this nowadays, david. i run into this myself sometimes. it's not that they have a fact to rebut you with, they just say, i don't know. i don't know there was a meaning. and the other jurors are supposed to be respectful. generally we believe everyone is on their best behavior. but they say, hey, we'll give it to you. >> i've spent a lot of times spending jurors step in the jury box and looking to see if they have the new york news or the daily times investor post and trying to read something into that. i think at the end of the day, i trust that a juror is going to really listen to the evidence and put their own biases aside and decide on the facts of the case. and i think that all the jurors together really help each other do that, you know, and focus and talk about -- >> i mean, up to a point, david.

if they're deep oan -- you know what i mean? if they're only into -- i met someone -- now i'm really going off topic. i met someone at a cocktail party once. they didn't know my job, so this was really random. said, oh what are your hobbies. i like music. what are yours? like normal chatter. they said, i'm really into conspiracy theories. i said, which ones? they said, the classics, jfk, moon landing, faked. they were serious. jury instructions require a certain level of information literacy that people refuse to use. >> and that's what the voir dire is designed to rule out. theoretically that should have come to the surface through voir dire. if you have a conspiracy theorist in there, you might be talking about a hung jury. >> you're willing to stick around? we have a manhattan insider d.a.

joining us, three questions about the man on your screen, david pecker. they got the memo, but where are they going? we have a veteran of this very office next. veteran of this very ofcefi next. (♪♪) (♪♪) try dietary supplements from voltaren, for healthy joints. when you over do it... undo it, with the pepto that's right for you. ♪ pepto has berry fast melts ♪ ♪ cherry chewables ♪

♪ liquicaps ♪ ♪ that make relief easy. ♪ ♪♪ ♪ pepto bismol. ♪ pick your pepto. mommy, what do you love to do? (chuckling) i love to be your mom. ( ♪♪ ) hey, what's your name? lukie! this is luke, and he has cerebral palsy. are we going to pt? yes, we are. luke's mom: without easterseals, my luke would be a very different luke. i'm gonna say hi. okay! let's say hi. hi! he wouldn't have got the help that he desperately needed. easterseals offers important disability and community services that can change a life forever. and your monthly support is critical for these kids' future. luke's mom: luke, he has had five therapy sessions a week for almost... for three and a half years. the need has not changed and there are more families that need help.

please join easterseals right now. go online, call or scan the qr code with your gift of just $19 a month. luke is a fighter. from the day he was born, to his time in the nicu, to luke's first time walking... now i'm going to cry... (sigh) you worked so hard. i'm so proud of you. i worked so hard. you did. you know, just to reach into your heart and see what your donation can do for these kids. 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. luke's mom: you don't know what the future has and it's very scary. (inaudible) you've changed the trajectory of my son's life. as a mom, i can't even explain

how much that means to me. please join easterseals with your monthly gift right now.

and i am going to jail, in part, because of my decision to help mr. trump hide that payment from the american people before they voted a few days later. >> hide the payment. catch and kill. this is ultimately where the case may rise and fall, and that's why it's so interesting, as you joins us now and we're all on verdict watch together, that we're learning what the jury's asking about. that was, of course, the trump tower plot and michael cohen discussing about the payment ultimately made to stormy daniels. jurors today requested information specifically on the trump tower meeting and on david pecker, the tabloid chief's conversation with donald trump. prosecution has argued that this was the meeting that started it

all because they came up with their catch and kill scheme. pecker ran "the inquirer." prosecutor questioned michael cohen about that stuff while he was on the stand. this is the type of stuff that might be read back out to the jury tomorrow. i can tell you right now, we know they asked cohen, what did pecker say he could do for trump's candidacy. cohen recounted, he said he'd keep an eye out for anything negative. he could help, know in advance what's coming out and stop it from coming out. how much does that match? well, pecker recounted, quote, 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'm going to keep reading because this is what the jury's likely to be given tomorrow, as they do the review. pecker continuing, i would notify michael cohen. and then he'd be able to have

them killed in another magazine or have them purchased. or somebody would have to purchase them. the d.a. follows up, purchase the negative stories about mr. trump so they would not be published you mean? and pecker confirming that they would not get published. yes, i would run or publish positive stories about trump and i would publish negative stories about his opponents. i said, i would be your eyes and ear. if you're thinking, okay, ari, i get the point. you need to get the point well beyond a reasonable doubt if they're going to win. so, all this stuff is supposed to be dead to rights. then we know in the d.a.'s closing arguments, which will not be re-read tomorrow but are relevant, prosecutor steinglass said the prism in which you should analyze this case, three rich and powerful men high up in trump tower trying to become even more powerful by controlling the flow of information that might reach the voters. the question here is not one of rhetoric. it's not one of ideology.

it's is that true and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did that at a criminal level? as i've told you, if the whole plan was just to say nice things about a candidate, we wouldn't be here. the allegation is a campaign crime, secret spending, blatantly violating the federal code that so many others follow, all so he could cheat. that's the allegation. as mentioned, we have a very special guest joining us. you might recognize her if you've been watching our coverage. she is in demand from the office bringing the case, the manhattan's d.a.'s office, katherine christian. welcome back. >> thank you. so, when i was a prosecutor, i was very superstitious. so, when notes came out that were good for me, i was cautiously optimistic. so, i think this prosecution team is cautiously optimistic because these notes of note, the questions, are dead on to right where josh steinglass wanted them to be, that trump tower

meeting, where the prosecution says the conspiracy was hatched, where there was, you know, the don, donald trump, and his con cig yair, michael cohen, dealing with mr. pecker, who was going to be the one to catch and kill. if you remember, the defense in their summation, mr. blanche said there wasn't a catch and kill. and josh steinglass, the prosecution in his summation said, just because they didn't use the words, that doesn't mean that's what it was. it was a catch and y that that and kill. so, i would be cautiously optimistic if i was a prosecutor, be very, you know, looking to thank goodness they are focusing in on what i want to. now, stepping back, it could be two jurors who want that. you know, a note doesn't have to be all 12. one juror can say, i want that question asked. >> but i think you're emphasizing something that really bears a focus here.

they're following the plot. the d.a. has the burden of proof, but they're telling you the story, like the movie. and all the questions show people asking about the core origin story of the movie and not something else. you know, if you ever go see a movie, you go see the godfather, it's an old movie, it's really great, and you walk out of there, they're talking about the main thing, the loyalty. i can't believe the brother turned on him. why would they do? they waited to count until the mom died? they're following the plot, right? but that's different than if they come out and they go, who would want to run a casino in nevada anyway. it doesn't seem like an interesting business. and you go, that's what they took from this? so, go ahead, they are following the plot. >> and they want the law read back to them, which says to me -- cautiously optimistic -- the jury instructions. so, we want that trump tower meeting. was that really where the conspiracy hatched? let's also look at the law and match the testimony with the

law. again, this is tea leaves, but i would be, as a prosecutor, hoping that that's what they're doing. >> one more question for you and we'll bring david back in. i want to remind folks, against all this seemingly d.a. oriented questioning, the prosecutors made that argument, but the defense had a very different take on all of this. it was an if true, still okay. i'm reading here from the closing argument, talking about ami, which is the tabloid. ami had been doing this for decades. they did it for trump since the '90s, meaning precampaign motivation. pecker told you stories all the time. tiger woods and other people was good business. many politicians work with the media -- he's expanding it out a little bit -- to try to promote their image. it's how you win a campaign. it's an election, not a crime. does review of any of this testimony tomorrow speak to that lens, which was the defense trying to poke that hole? >> it does because from the

defense perspective, i would think that they also are probably a little pessimistic, but they're also optimistic, hey, we talked about that trump tower meeting too. and now some of those jurors, hopefully all of them, but some of them also want to hear it back too. they also want to hear michael cohen too to see if what they were telling them was really where they should be going, as opposed to where the prosecution wants them to go. >> an interesting thing here for people to understand is that this stage of the proceedings is a very important part for lawyering. i mean, the advocacy that goes on here on how to respond to the jury's question can be fierce. and it needs to be fierce. and if you're not fierce about it, you're not doing your job. but we're not seeing the back and forth between todd blanche and the prosecutors. these folks are probably banging their heads together, against each other, trying to go back and trying to present to the judge what they think should be

presented to the jury in response to these questions. >> i'm also curious, david, what you think about when you read back pecker's testimony, the other obvious thing -- and sometimes it's my job to say the obvious thing -- is when they first heard it, it was the beginning of the case. they weren't ready in the way they are now. so, it might sound worse for trump, better for the prosecution, because they're now going to hear it back and know that hope hicks and trump's personal secretary and, yes, cohen, whatever you think of him, a lot of other people added to pecker's testimony. i never heard -- and again, i try to cover this as fairly as i can. i never heard anyone really undercut his core points. here's what he said about his consciousness of all of this. even while he's doing it, the defense is saying, it happens all the time. pecker, whose direct testimony says, he told his own "inquirer" leadership, he told them, we're going to try and help the campaign. we're going to keep it as quiet as possible. i want it confidential.

is that bad? >> yeah, it is bad. again, it really paints a picture the nature of this conspiracy. and i think that, you know, you hit the nail on the head a minute ago. pecker's testimony wasn't really challenged in any credible -- his credibility wasn't really challenged in a meaningful way. so, they're getting pecker's story. and they're going to see how cohen's story fits into that. and i think the portions you read, his story does fit into that. and that's exactly what the prosecutors wanted. they wanted to paint this picture, and they wanted it corroborated. they wanted all the pieces to fit together. that's what the jury appears to be doing is taking a piece that is kind of a given, pecker, and taking, you know, cohen and saying, does this really fit in there? and it does. that's a problem for the defense. >> and then i'm wondering if these questions, in your view, catherine, do they lean towards validating the way the d.a. broadened the case? if you do it the narrowest possible way, you'd say, i've

got the stormy daniels checks. how are you going to deny that? they did, but i don't think it was very plausible. you just focus in like a laser. they took their time with this. we all know the history. they went broader than they had to. the fact that we're being -- the first questions out the gate are about karen mcdougal, who did not testify, right, but who was recorded. and her life rights, not just the scummyness of that, but the question of whether they were an illegal arm of the campaign. i want to play a little bit more of anderson cooper's interview with ms. mcdougal. >> why do you think they squashed the story? >> back then or now? >> now. >> they -- they -- they didn't want to hurt him. >> you think it's because of a personal relationship with the guy who runs ami is friends with donald trump? >> correct. >> was it right to bring her in even though legally it wasn't certainly required. >> well, the law says it

completed the narrative and it explained the whole catch and kill. it was dino the doorman -- i can't remember his last name -- ms. mcdougal, all the way to stormy daniels. and what's good for the prosecution is that they're focusing on david pecker. after -- i didn't see the trial. i read the transcript of the whole trial. i think that david pecker was the most material witness. everyone says michael cohen. obviously he was very, very important. but pecker was the one who established the conspiracy. this is how it happened, and this is why we did what we did for the campaign. and this is what we're going to do for donald trump's campaign. now, she said, ms. mcdougal said they didn't want to hurt him. they didn't want to hurt his campaign. she didn't use those words. i'm adding those words. but that's what the prosecution would argue was the conspiracy was about protecting him, promoting his election by unlawful means. >> given the answers to these questions, how many hours will

it take just to hear that tomorrow? >> well, i was reading -- after the jury was excused, that's when the lawyers went back and forth. it seems -- first of all, they want the instructions read back. that will take -- it took -- i don't know how much of the jury instructions they want read back. it took an hour today. it seems it will probably be another hour to read it back. remember it's a court reporter who's reading it back who may have to take some time and drink some water. it could take between the jury instructions and the readback, about two hours. >> would you expect more questions tomorrow, more deliberation? >> there will be more deliberation but we don't know whether or not they said, okay, good, we got it, or we still need more. so, that is really the tea leaves. >> uh-huh. >> they started in the right place. they zeroed right in on the prosecution's case. they seem to get it because it seems like they're focusing on the credibility, which was

unchallenged. >> very interesting to hear from both of you, david and catherine, former prosecutors in new york. coming up, we turn to an insider who knows all about how the defense is trying to poke these holes on a day where the defense looks like they might be on defense. a year after a heart attack, mike's feeling like himself again. but even though time has passed, his risk of a second attack hasn't. mike is still living in the red. with a very high risk of another heart attack or stroke.

he doesn't know with his risk factors his ldl-c (bad cholesterol) is still too high - the recommended level is below 55. are you living in the red? get in the know. learn how to get a free ldl-c test at attackheartdisease.com. everybody wants super straight, super white teeth. they want that hollywood white smile. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients. for moderate to severe crohn's disease skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. control of crohn's means everything to me. ask your gastroenterologist about skyrizi. ♪ control is everything to me ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save.

try killing bugs the worry-free way. not the other way. zevo traps use light to attract and trap flying insects with no odor and no mess. they work continuously, so you don't have to. zevo. people-friendly.

bug-deadly. power e*trade's easy to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans 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 hi, i'm chris and i lost 57 pounds on golo. andgolo isn't complicated.ket. i don't have to follow a restrictive diet, and i don't have to spend a lot of time making meals. using golo was truly transformative. it was easy, and inexpensive.

less than two weeks before the presidential election, michael cohen wired $130,000 to

stormy daniels' lawyer. that payment was to hide damaging information from the voting public. the scheme violated new york election law -- >> violates election law. and here for the first time today we're learning what the jury is thinking. it is big. it is interesting. and you can see three questions about david pecker's dealings with donald trump and one about cohen on that same related pecker trump tower meeting to catch and kill. we have heard from prosecutors. we have heard a little bit from the jury in the sense that the questions show what they're asking about. it doesn't mean we know what they're thinking. and now we hear from a very special guest. michael van der veen specializes in criminal defense. michael, as you may know, that was the worst impeachment of the two. welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> happy to have you, get your perspective. we just heard from people about these questions. you can't really debate that

they at least pick up on the prosecutor's theory of the case. whether they accept that theory, we don't know. but with an eye on what trump's defense lawyers might be thinking, preparing for, what are you seeing in these questions. >> well, you know, i think they are talking about the things that not only the prosecutor was interested in pointing out in his closing but also the defense in their closing in saying that these meetings didn't tie it the way that they want, that the prosecution wanted to tie it to. what's interesting about the jury room, there's nobody else back there but the 12 jurors. they've got two laptops that have all the evidence on them. the judge today, i think, turned off the wifi on it. what they're doing is they're listening to each one of the 12. you know, everybody's listening to everybody. it's very possible that one person just wanted to hear that. they could have a list of other things that they're going to want to be going at. but somebody might have said, let's start here. the forearm said -- >> well, there's four.

if somebody said, i want to hear the trump defense witnesses, there weren't as many, that could have been the fifth. that didn't get asked today, right? >> no. but they usually -- generally a jury will start with the prosecution's case, the case itself. and the court starts it with their case. and in this case and in new york, the prosecution ends the case with their arguments. >> so, walk us through how that might not work well for prosecutors. you're arguing that they could, tomorrow, hear the review of the trump tower meeting, and some of the jurors might, having heard it twice, say, i don't think it's all it's been cracked up to be? >> sure, there are lots of things they could say about the meeting with trump and cohen at trump tower. there are lots of things that they could say about the meeting with pecker, that, you know, it wasn't the crime, the underlying crime that the prosecution needs to have, which was the motivation of the conversation. you know, you can have people in there holding onto, i presume

innocent. they have to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. let's look at the things they were saying first. let's start out there. >> pecker deciding not to seek the funds from trump because his lawyer told him that would be bad. that piece of testimony that they want to review, that's bad for trump, no? >> well, if they believe that, sure, that's bad for trump. but they may be looking at inconsistencies between things cohen said and things pecker said and things that steinglass argued. so, it's just such a black curtain right now that everything is behind. >> i want to show you something they said on fox about these jurors. not to take anything away from your advocacy. but when you have a senate and a lot of of them work closely with the president, it's not exactly a random jury, is it? >> well, if you want to -- that's very interesting because actually that jury were witnesses.

they were also, quote, victims of the day -- >> quote? quote victims or just victims? >> and the judges. well, quote, victims. >> not real victims. they had to run for their lives. >> well, my point was really more that if you're the victim, you can't be the judge and the jury too. just the system itself. >> i actually understand the legal point you're making. you just lost me a little bit on quote. >> it's a fairness question though actually. >> i want to play this for you because my distinction there was that was a certain type of jury. here, we have these 12 new yorkers. we don't know much about them. but some in the trump world are eyeing as one of them really helpful. some of them read truth social, this and that. here's brian kilmeade. take a listen. >> the trump team is eyeing one juror in particular, who appeared to be nodding along with the defense and throughout the trial of 22 days and lit up

when j.d. vance walked in the room and the other high profile republicans. so, that's all you need. >> lit up. your reaction to that type of analysis? >> if i can tell you how many times i've sat at the defense table and seen a juror nod and think, oh, my gosh, they're with me or oh, my gosh, they're against me, and touchdown be absolutely the opposite. you really can't tell anything about what the jury's thinking other than what i think they think of the judge. all reports that i've gotten, they're all smiling with the judge. they're cordial with the judge. i tried the trump payroll case with this judge and these prosecutors, with juan merchan, a little over a year ago. and juries love them. and he interacts with them in a very professional way but in a way that endears himself to that. so, these instructions he's reading really have extra significance. if he can say one thing, it

appears with him. and that's usually the case. >> i will say, i mean, he had -- i watched him inside that courtroom as well, different standard than yours. but he's almost overwhelmingly careful and fair. that's his whole vibe. i don't know who that helps in his case. often that can help a defendant more if the jury really takes some of those standards seriously. >> when you read the record, it seems he's bending over backwards to be fair. there's a lot more going into 360 degrees of a courtroom other than what's on the dry paper. i will tell you that he's very deferential to the jury. and i will also tell you that when we did mock jury trials and we did jury did mock jury triald we did jury questionnaires and whatnot before our trial, 8 1/2 hour 10 prospective jurors in manhattan had very negative,

very negative opinions of the president. so when i look at that jury they got now, i'm very confident that there are a bunch of them that don't like him. >> but the question's not whether they like him, the question's whether they can be fair. i'll give you a democrat. people didn't like rob blagojevich, some people liked him initially, you remember that guy. but a democratic governor. but in chicago, which is a highly democratic blue area, he was put on trial, he was convicted. >> the point i was trying to make was to your point. i think when a juror gets back in that room that they've sat through a trail -- >> they will be fair? >> they will be fair. they'll listen to those instructions. they'll understand how really important their job is to the fundamental -- >> you're saying some of these people may dislike trump, but they could even still be the holdouts for not guilty? >> sure. i think they'll be the holdouts for doing what's right. and whether that's -- >> we're running over on time. do you have a call, do you have a prediction? >> if there's not a verdict

tomorrow, it hangs on friday. >> if there's not a verdict tomorrow, it hangs on friday? >> that's what i think. >> decisive. we'll see if you're right. you have a lot of experience. appreciate you coming in. >> such pleasure to have me, thanks. are the the world's watching and we'll take a moment to realize how many other countries are following this verdict watch. blistering rash that can last for weeks. ahhh, there's nothing like a day out with friends. that's nice, but shingles doesn't care! 99% of adults 50 years or older already have the virus that causes shingles inside them, and it can reactivate at any time. a perfect day for a family outing! guess what? shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. only shingrix is proven over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen.

the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today.

an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven thanks for spending time with us on "the beat with ari

melber" and keep it loclocksed msnbc. msnbc. of movement. a mystery! jessie loves playing detective. but the real mystery was her irritated skin. so, we switched to tide free & gentle. it cleans better, and doesn't leave behind irritating residues. and it's gentle on her skin. tide free and gentle liquid is epa safer choice certified. it's gotta be tide. hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable catd is epa safetreat?ce certified. de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat. [ doorbell rings ] you must be isaac. come on in. ♪ deliciously de-lick-able delectables ♪ [ sighs ] here's my pride and joy. [ romantic music plays ] ♪♪ beautiful stair renovation, sir. and they're covered with your home and auto bundle

with progressive, so you get round-the-clock protection. so, is gabby coming down? oh, she said she'll meet you at the prom. higher shipping rates may be “the cost of doing business...” but at what cost? turn shipping to your advantage. with low cost ground shipping from the united states postal service. ♪♪ nice to meet ya. my name is david. i've been a pharmacist for 44 years. when i have customers come in and ask for something for memory, i recommend prevagen. number one, because it's effective. does not require a prescription. and i've been taking it quite a while myself and i know it works. and i love it when the customers come back in and tell me, "david, that really works so good for me." makes my day. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription.

norman, bad news... makes my day. i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better!

now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?