good morning. it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. let's get right to the breaking news in the historic trial of donald trump. the jury just back in the courtroom right now after sending a third note early this morning specifying the portion of the judge's jury instructions

they want to hear again, and this morning the jury will also re-hear four pieces of critical testimony in the case at their request. nbc's yasmin vossoughian is outside the courthouse. also with us, msnbc legal correspondent and host katie phang along with catherine christian, former assistant manhattan district attorney. kristy greenberg, former federal prosecutor and sdny criminal division deputy chief. and harry litman, former deputy assistant attorney general. yasmin, i want to go right to the courthouse. let's start with what we heard from the jurors in this new note today. >> reporter: so we needed clarification on what they wanted out of jury instructions, right? we didn't know if they wanted the entirety of the jury instructions read back to them after yesterday's note or they wanted a portion. it turns out they wanted a portion. they essentially wanted what the jury considers as evidence in the lead up to count one. that's really the entirety of all of the instructions, if you remember the judge in his

initial instructions did not go through every count, and that was in order to save time because all of the instructions together took an hour and 15 minutes. so that's exactly what he's doing now. the lead up to count one, what the jury can consider as evidence. it's pages 6 through 35 or so. that is what judge juan merchan is reading to the jurors right now. i have the entirety of the jury instructions in my hand right now, 55 pages worth. as i was looking through what it is the jury is being read back to, it started off with drawing inferences right? there's an example made by the judge in drawing inferences as to the fact that it rained outside, right? you went to bed. it wasn't raining. you got up in the morning, the ground looked wet. people are walking around with umbrellas, but you don't necessarily see rain falling from the sky. you can draw an inference that, in fact, it rained or it may rain in the future. that is an example he gave, for instance, in drawing inferences within his jury instructions. they go through limiting instructions as well. now, this is interesting because

you remember two of the questions that they asked of the four regarding pecker, regarding michael cohen's testimony as well, and it seemed as if it was about pecker and cohen's testimony when it came to that trump tower meeting in 2015. drawing credibility when it comes to pecker and michael cohen. within these limiting instructions, they talk about the fact that pecker struck this -- this deal with the fec along with the fdny, this non-prosecution deal and to use that assess his credibility, not to assess whether or not donald trump is guilty or not guilty, and when it comes to michael cohen as well, yes, in fact, he pled guilty. yes, in fact, he lied under oath. to use those things to assess his credibility, not to use those things to assess whether or not donald trump is guilty or not guilty. they talk about not to draw inferences from the fact the former president decided not to testify, they talked about reasonable doubt. new york election law, federal

election law, tax law as well. this all makes up, ana, the 6 to 35-page that judge juan merchan is now reading back to the jury when it comes to these jury instructions. i'm also being told numerous jurors insides jury box right now, four of them to be specific, are taking notes. remember, they cannot take this back into the deliberation room, right? every time they have a question about jury instructions and/or the law, they have to bring a note, ring the bell, send a note to the judge, and be brought back into the courtroom to be read back those jury instructions. >> yasmin, stay with us here. let's talk about what they've requested when it comes to the jury instructions, guys. the judge saying it begins with how the jury considers the evidence, and it's several pages long, and it goes also up into the description of the law with respect to count one. harry, what do you read into this what they're looking for

here? >> it's a little bit perplexing because they've asked for so much. it would take an hour and a half to read it all. this would be like 45 minutes. why would they want everything, including a lot of these bromides of conclusions, etsz. one possibility occurs to me. this is a very self-aware jury, they come in, they don't talk to each other. they're soldiers of justice. it may be there are two or three nuggets within these 35 pages and they don't want to show their hand. they know they're being watched carefully or they might want to hear the whole thing again and take notes there, you know, different people miss different things. it's very normal to get asked for specific instructions to be read back. it's abnormal in my experience, to ask for, you know, the whole thing or half of the thing. >> this is a little bit more detailed here. they're getting into the fundamental principles related to can burden of proof. they're now talking about the credibility of witnesses. that's included within this chunk of the jury instructions. meantime, the color coming from

the courtroom is that the jurors are remarkably engaged, that three or four of them have been taking notes. every one of them is directed in their body language toward the judge and/or is writing something down. catherine, your thoughts on what they are rehearing when it comes to these jury instructions. >> that's very good, again, i read tea leaves but for the prosecution perspective, whenever the jury wanted to hear the law, it's like, yes, they're focused in on the law. not just the law in this case. they want read back of testimony, and the testimony they want read back is conspiracy. donald trump was the center, he was a participant that was very active. he wasn't passive, so but they want the law read back, and i want them to hear reasonable doubt and credibility of witnesses, and the first count meaning they're all the same count. they're all falsifying business records in the first degree. so if i'm the prosecutor, i always say cautiously optimistic because i never said i'm going

to win, but i would feel good if i was listening to this right now. >> and so what about you, katie? do you have any sense of where they are in their deliberations? >> so at this table, we've all tried cases which is a great perspective to have. i love jigsaw puzzles. if you do a jigsaw puzzle, you'll try to fit a piece somewhere. and sometimes it fits and sometimes it doesn't n. this instance when we try to look at the ask yesterday for certain pieces of testimony. they asked today for the reading back of certain portions of the instructions, maybe it makes sense that's exactly what they're doing. or could it be that that was 55 pages of jury instructions yesterday and they just need it read back. they need to have their recollections refreshed. i think it's important to cautiously be optimistic that these read backs or asks are favorable towards the prosecution. the good takeaway to harry's point, they're being diligent. you want a jury regardless of the outcome to be diligent and mindful and respectful of this

process. the one thing i'd say to harry, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes in the jury room. maybe they are friendly with each other. when they come in, they want to be all business. maybe that's kind of the impression they're giving. i do think that the fact that there's this body language of them turning and looking at judge merchan is actually also a good sign for the prosecution. they're listening to the judge: they're looking at him for guy -- guidance and with the dynamics that have gone on with todd blanche and others, bob costello too, i think it's good for the prosecution. >> they've heard about the motive again, page 17. they're also on to inconsistent statements, which is page 19. so this seems to be moving pretty quickly. pages 6 through 35 are the ones they're specifically revisiting. your take, kristy? >> i think this is a very smart jury. we can see that there are lawyers on this jury, finance, engineers. they're highly educated, and i've had to look at these jury

instructions in writing more than once, so if somebody had just told me the jury instructions once verbally, i actually would want to hear them again. they're pretty detailed, so i think -- i agree with everyone here. they're doing their jobs. i read more from the testimony that they have requested because this is the testimony -- if you're joshua steinglass, you are very happy right now because this is exactly what he asked them to focus on, that trump tower meeting. he said this is the prism through which you should be viewing all of the evidence in this case. this is where the election law conspiracy was hatched. he told them to go to that. he then told them about this june 2016 pecker, donald trump call, and he said there's a ton of documents in this case, and i don't want you to lose the significance of this call. he highlighted this. this is the call where donald trump deputizes michael cohen. he's going to be your go between. he's going to be the person talking to going forward. this is the time he said karen's

a nice girl. he knows her, and it's also where they discussed purchasing the story. it's a very important call for the prosecution. lastly, the life rights. this is where joshua steinglass said during the closing this is an illegal campaign conspiracy. committing it by unlawful means, one of those being a federal campaign finance violation, this is what he pointed to, the mcdougal life rates as an example of an illegal campaign contribution that would be unlawful means. he pointed them straight to this. it's a corporation ami paying for life rights. that is illegal. corporations can't make contributions to a candidate. very clean. the fact that they're looking at these pieces of evidence, if they believe the prosecution, if, this would get them to the election law conspiracy. >> there's one more ask that they've made this morning that we haven't mentioned. they asked for audio headphones. they want to listen to stuff. what's most likely there?

all of the stuff is about the mcdougal transaction. >> why do you think they're zooming into the mcdougal transaction? >> well, for the very reasons kristy said, that is although it's mostly about pecker and cohen, i think they're looking at donald trump. the first thing they asked for is this call that kristy just mentioned. the initiation of the meeting accommodation later. what would they want to be listening to? it strikes me. i'm not sure how many tapes there are out there. one of them is michael cohen taping trump on the mcdougal transaction. so if they're zeroing in on this, i think what they could well be zeroing in on is exactly the role that cohen says he played, the d.a. says he played and which shows trump's knowledge. he deputizes cohen to be the fixer, the guy to be in touch with things. that really undermines trump's credibility as does the affair with mcdougal which his lawyer said didn't happen.

i think this goes with trump and probably the audio to hear the cohen's call. >> just checking in on where they're at with the jury instructions being read back. they're now on page 22, accomplice as a matter of law, just a reminder under our law, michael cohen's an accomplice there's evidence he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations against the defendant is what that part of the jury instructions reads. let me put up again the graphic for our viewers and tick through again the four pieces of testimony that this jury has requested to rehear or have read back. it's former "national enquirer" david pecker's testimony about the phone call he had with trump regarding karen mcdougal. pandemicer on mcdougal's life rights and pecker and michael cohen's testimony about the 2015 trump tower meeting. as a whole as you look at that, katie, does that give you some clues as to how at least some of the jurors are seeing this or an

area that they may be concerned about? >> so it's important to remember these are 12 people that never knew each other before they sat together for the last six plus weeks. they synthesize information differently. they have different backgrounds, either educationally or when it comes to their jobs, and so they may all be looking at it through a different lens, but something that catherine said yesterday and again right now is important to emphasize, and harry touched upon it as well as kristy, that 2015 trump tower meeting, donald trump was principally involved in that conversation. this was not a, hey, boss, this is michael telling you what's going on. this is donald trump with david pecker with cohen on the sidelines. cohen was a proxy, remember, for donald trump. cohen was donald trump's proxy to be able to handle these things, but it wasn't that trump was unaware. i think when you weave it all together and you see that donald trump didn't disavow knowing who karen mcdougal is. donald trump doesn't avow

participating in the $150,000 payment through a false business entity. it adds to the layers of criminality. so when kristy says this is the prism through which you look at all the activity, it is chronological, so you kind of tip your hat to that. it's the beginning, and that's why i call it the original sin. that is the original sin. that is when they decided the catch and kill scheme that was do you know the doorman, karen mcdougal, stormy daniels. that laid the foundation for them to realize how are we going to protect this trump campaign, and that's where all the criminality happens. >> catherine, you said you believe it's pecker, not michael cohen who made them the key witness in this trial. do you think based on these requests the jury is looking at that the same way? >> that's the sense i get. i always said -- he described himself as being sort of the eyes and ears for the campaign. i think mr. pecker was the eyes and ears for this jury to the conspiracy that was hatched at that august 2015 trump tower

meeting. and no, as katie just said, michael cohen was not going rogue. he was there a proxy. it was donald trump, you know, the don and his consiglierecons. he didn't have baggage. he owned that he was sort of the sleazy head of the national "enquirer," so i think they're focusing in on whether it's five or all 12 of them, is very good for the prosecution. >> pecker was the first witness. michael cohen was the last witness, so let's talk about the fact that they want testimony from each of those men on the same meeting, that trump tower meeting, which we've touched on a little bit, but let's dive a little bit deeper and look at what the testimony said specifically. pecker says this, i would run or publish positive stories about mr. trump, and i would publish negative stories about his

opponents. i said that i would also be your eyes and ears. here's cohen, what david pecker said is he could keep an eye out for anything negative about mr. trump, and thoo he would be able to help us to know in advance what was coming out and try to stop it from coming out. again, these are just snippets. you've been in the court, kristy, do you recall or see anything that's substantially different in the versions of these two men's stories? >> no, not substantially. there's no material difference. they generally corroborate each other in telling the same story, which is this three-pronged conspiracy, right? positive stories about trump, negative stories about his opponents. pecker being the eyes and ears, let michael cohen know if you hear anything, particularly if it's about women and it's damaging, let michael cohen know so that we can handle it. they were both aligned on those three points, and that's, i think, the key that the prosecution wanted to make sure that the jury -- that they got across to the jury.

>> first, i think that meeting is the only thing the jury heard about that involved more than two peek. there was one other important meeting that weisselberg was in but he doesn't testify. so it's their one instance of having versions next to each other. >> corroboration. >> corroboration of cohen, and then second, another very important part of the phone call, it's later that pecker testifies, but he says trump tells him deal with michael. deal with -- for these things. he's my guy on this, completely corroborating cohen and pecker's story. >> the other part of the phone call that they are looking at between pecker and trump, he asks pecker, or he tells pecker, i should say, i spoke to michael. karen is a nice girl. that line stands out, right? he seems to also confirm it sounds like -- he knows mcdougal. >> that's how pecker took it. they actually asked pecker.

>> if you didn't know, wouldn't you deny it. it's human nature to look towards what's the natural reaction and his natural -- donald trump's natural reaction was not who? what are you talking about? who is that? i mean, if you think about trump meeting all of these, quote, beautiful women all the time. he didn't say who. she's a nice lady. she's a beautiful lady. i mean, that's the thing that makes pecker so credible. my mentor and friend donald trump still. i mean, consider what pecker's been through. he's lost money with trump, right? he's been shafted by him. he's gone through the fec, the sdny, the manhattan d.a. dude's not even at the "national enquirer" anymore because of all of this, and what does he get for it? he's still my friend and mentor. the credibility of pecker is powerful. this guy didn't have an axe to grind. during blanche's closing, he didn't attack david pecker. he actually went after some smaller kind of role players we heard from like madeleine westerhout, for example, but

otherwise pecker was there. >> yasmin, what else was on that phone call? remind us. >> reporter: yeah, so i think we got to kind of connect the dots here and why it's so incredibly important the portions they want read back when it came to these jury instructions along with what we're hearing and what we're going to be hearing from the testimony that was read back to them as well. there was a phone call that you guys recounted, this investor meeting in which pecker got the phone call from donald trump. donald trump says what do you think about karen mcdougal. she's a nice girl. so on and so forth. pecker says, i think you should pay her. donald trump says i don't usually pay people. then you're going to hear from michael cohen. fast forward to these other phone conversations between david pecker and michael cohen, and they're talking about buying karen mcdougal's life rights. david pecker says how am i going to be paid back? who's going to give me this money back? cohen says the boss is going to take care of you. then pecker is asked who did you take the boss to mean?

donald trump. i took the boss to mean donald trump. the reason why i think this is so incredibly important, along with the infamous trump tower meeting that you all have been talking about and we've been talking about for the last six weeks where the prosecution alleges this entire scheme began is when you listen to the jury instructions, especially when it comes to the limiting instructions with regards to david pecker's testimony, michael cohen's testimony, right, how to assess them as being credible or not, and accomplice as a matter of law, i.e. michael cohen as that accomplice, those three things together along with the portions of the testimony that they are asking to be reread back to them, i think tells us a lot about where the minds of this jury is. again, to take you inside that courtroom once again, ana, quickly, we've got a lot of notes being taken, multiple pages being turned over. the foreperson, juror number 1, the first juror to be chosen here when this jury was impanelled, not notably taking notes, looking directly at judge juan merchan as he is reading

out these jury instructions, but himself not taking notes. >> everybody has their own style, their own way of really sinking in that information into their being. right now they're talking about the new york election law predicate and that's page 30 for those who may be following along. they have to get to page 35 for the readback on the jury instructions before they move on to the testimony that they've requested to rehear. catherine, why can't they take the testimony back to the jury room. >> the only judge who ever did it is when the defense and the prosecution allowed it. most of the judges in that courthouse are like, no, we're not doing that. i'm old school. i want them to come out and ask the judge for the law. i don't want them to like figure it out themselves. so if he has to as he's doing now read it back in his way and they really respect him, i want them to hear it from him, not someone who like says i'll tell

you what the law means. someone could still be saying that when they go back into the deliberation but it's not allowed in new york state. >> let's bring in former florida senior judge phyllis coe ta. let's me just outline the four pieces of testimony the jury wants to hear again. it's david pecker on that june 2016 call with trump, pecker on buying karen mcdougal's life rights. pecker and michael cohen's accounts of that 2015 trump tower meeting where they hatch the plan to catch and kill stories that could be harmful to trump's campaign. what do these requests from the jury tell you? >> it really does tell you where and the kinds of things that the jury is focusing on in terms of looking for corroboration, looking at testimony that they might question for some reason in terms of the credibility of a witness, but seeing or analyzing whether there is or are pieces of evidence that coincide. so i think you get to see that

when you hear their selection of what they want to hear, and the judge actually giving them that information. >> and again, these jury instructions are lengthy. it took the judge over an hour to read them initially. the jury requesting a chunk in the middle of these instructions to hear again. i imagine you have heard hundreds of cases in your court, maybe thousands, i don't know. how complicated is this one for the jury? >> well, it can be complicated, first of all, because you're dealing with a number of counts or charges, but the easy thing about that, though, is a lot of the charges are duplications so that once the jury is able to make a decision as to one of those charges or as to one of those issues, it then can be easily applied to others. so that certainly makes it a little easier to understand, but one of the things that's happening and we see it being played out in terms of the types of questions that are being asked is what is the proper

inference to be given to the testimony and evidence of any given witness, and then what happens as it relates to the defendant, and as we've heard from the instructions given by the judge, there will be a set of instructions about the inference that can be drawn from mr. pecker's testimony, from mr. cohen's testimony, but alongside that is this instruction that this must not or should not be applied to the defendant. so it becomes very important. instructions, jury instructions are key elements of this portion of the trial. it's actually one of the most successful appealable areas in terms of any errors that can occur. >> do you see any potential vulnerabilities in these instructions that could be brought up on appeal? >> was that to me? >> yes. >> no, actually, this judge has been excellent with how he's handled questions, with how he's handled the presentation or

receipt of evidence, and how he's handled this jury, so i take my hat off to him. he's done an incredible job with representing the judiciary as fair, neutral, detached and properly engaged in seeking justice. >> meantime right now inside the courtroom, they are talking about the federal election campaign act, page 31 of the jury instructions. meantime, trump's been raging on social media nonstop throughout the trial. he had something like 20 posts within an hour of the jury beginning their deliberations yesterday, and one of these posts yesterday he seemed to refer to michael cohen, he said, quote, there is no crime except for the bum that got caught stealing from me. that would appear to be a violation of the gag order, no? and although prosecutors haven't brought it up, at this point is it even worth the court addressing further violations, or could it come back to bite trump perhaps in sentencing if he's convicted?

>> you know, one of the things we talk about a lot of times is whether the judge should act on his own, on her own in terms of determining whether certain issues should be addressed. we saw that earlier with how the judge dealt with the objections during the testimony of one of the witnesses and finally objecting to it or restricting that testimony in evidence. i think we see the same kind of thing with the possible violation of a gag order. first of all, the prosecution did not file a motion asking that the judge consider this, and given where we are in this trial and the end being in sight, as a judge, you really do not want to get bogged down with collateral issues, issues that really don't relate to guilt or innocence. it may be a violation, but it also may be an intentional decision of the judge that if no

one bring this is up and i don't have to deal with it, i'm not going to deal with this. >> over and over and over again trump has called judge merchan conflicted. he's called him corrupt. he's also attacked other judges in his other cases. he's called the judicial system rigged and speeches outside the court online, it's this message he just keeps hammering home, and voters seem to be internalizing this message. take a look at this. >> it seems like a witch hunt to me. >> it's my personal opinion that a lot of this stuff is vindictive. >> banana republic tactics and persecution when they could have brought those charges against him many years ago. >> he's echoing, they're echoing what they're hearing from trump. how worried are you about the impacts this case could have on public sentiment toward our judiciary and democracy regardless of the outcome? >> actually, i'm very worried because one of the things we hear happening over and over again is references that are clearly inapplicable.

for example, we are in a state court, so whether a federal court decided to bring charges or decided not to bring charges really isn't relevant, and if you look at this -- look at the facts in a way that really kind of detaches itself from the political they have nothing to do with each other. one of the things that hopefully judge merchan's behavior has cemented is the fact that he is so transparent about what he does. that he does try, it appears to be, a fair and neutral magistrate, but there is some concern that people will not accept the conclusion, will not accept the verdict if they question the legitimacy of the decision maker and the decision-making process. so i think it is an issue of great concern. i think it's an issue that's fairly been dealt with in terms of our system, but one that we

cannot ignore because many people look at what one person calls a fact and comes up with a totally different conclusion. that's the concern here. >> i appreciate you so much. thank you for taking the time with us today. we truly appreciate it. our panel is back with us and nbc news legal analyst and criminal defense attorney danny cevallos is joining the conversation. judge merchan just finished reading the jury instructions that this group has asked to hear back, and now he says they're on to the read back of the witness testimony that they've requested, those four pieces we've been discussing. danny, when a jury sends a note asking for specific testimony, do you in your, you know, lawyer strategizing sessions try to figure out what it means? are you reading tea leaves, or is it a fool's errand? >> it's a fool's errand. it's hopeless. i mean, you can try, and of course everyone even on your team might have differing opinions as to why or what purpose that note means, what it

means. i mean, the words itself seem so straightforward. we want to hear this testimony. but then you're left wondering why? what are they fighting about? who's in the minority in that jury room? is it even an argument, or are they saying i'm not sure i remember exactly what was said. any of those are possible. everything from bitter disagreement to really just clarifying some factual issues. ultimately you might find out it was one or two jurors pushing for that readback. they had no disputes, no doubts as to what the testimony involved. it is a fool's errand to read closely into notes like these. sometimes you get a note that is obvious for one side or the other, like can we convict on all charges: you start as a defense attorney, yikes that's not good for us, but that's not what we're seeing here. i think the fact that they're looking first at this kind of testimony, the testimony of david pecker who was the first

witness, and then michael cohen who was the last witness suggests to me that they're probably not going to go witness by witness, by going with the first and the last and arguably the two most important witnesses, they seem to be starting out focusing on the star witnesses for the prosecution. at least at this point. that could change. >> the woman who's reading the testimony has a new york accent we're learning and the two court reporters are rereading a portion of the testimony right now from david pecker. this is a fairly complicated case, i think, fair to say, kristy given the lengthy jury instructions. of course, more than two dozen counts, nearly three dozen counts that the jurors have to consider, would you expect to get more notes from the jury? >> i think so. look, it's really hard to say, but at least what they have focused on with this evidence that they've requested really relates to the election law conspiracy. it's unclear if they may have

questions about that falsified business records piece of it, none of this really speaks to that portion of the charges that they would have to be unanimous on. so again, maybe it could be that they're all aligned on that already. it could be that they haven't gotten to it yet, or it just may be that they're working through this piece first. you know, it's really hard to say, but these pieces of evidence alone that they've asked for would not get you the whole way there in terms of everything they have to review. >> again, 34 counts. you've got 34 verdicts, right, that will ultimately have to be decided here. so there are all kinds of different outcomes that we could see. an acquittal on all counts. convictions on all counts, a partial version. for a case like this do you expect to see an all or nothing verdict. >> >> i think this became an all or nothing, todd blanche took the position that his client is innocent.

he didn't say this was something that happened at the trump organization, that he didn't know about, but alas, it happened, which he could have done frankly because you can't get the misdemeanors, the statute of limitations has run. this is maybe something that danny could speak to better when it comes to that defense strategy. it's an all or nothing proposition. i also think you have to be careful about an iconsistent verdict. could that necessarily make sense? i just think some people are also of the school of thought, it could be just a guilty verdict on the counts that deal with donald trump's signature on the checks. the personal account checks that he signed versus the revocable trust checks that he didn't sign. so if you're kind of looking at it from the mens rea, like the criminality mind of donald trump, it's really evidenced by the fact that he took it and he signed it himself versus maybe somebody else signing those two other checks. >> what about your thoughts on the all or nothing verdict? >> i think it will be all or nothing, but i could also see what katie just said. you could have jurors saying,

look, the ledger entries, really, does he know about the dropdown box and the invoices and that's what you call the compromise, and they all -- but when todd blanche said -- and he said in his summation, you know, these were not false because when you pay your lawyer, you know, it's a legal expense. so that's sort of -- i agree, then you're basically, you know, you're telling the jury it's all or nothing. he's either not guilty of everything or he's guilty of everything. >> let me get back into the document real fast. we now know the specific section they're reread related to that david pecker donald trump phone call the jurors wanted to hear. where were you when you got this call from donald trump? this is the testimony of david pecker. >> i was at an investors',s at one of my largest investors meeting in engine. new jersey. >> how did the call come up?

the assistant in the office came into the conference room and said there's a call for you from donald trump. and i left and took the call. and could you tell us about the conversation you had that day with donald trump? yes, when i got on the phone, mr. trump said to me, i spoke to michael. karen is a nice girl. is it true that a mexican group is looking to buy her story for $8 million? i said i absolutely don't believe that there's a mexican group out there to buy a story for $8 million and then he said, what do you think i should do? i think you should buy the story and take it off the market. so when the subject of karen mcdougal came up, donald trump described her as a nice girl? pecker answers, yes. and during this reread trump has his eyes closed. danny, your thoughts on this part of the system? >> this could be because the jury views this as one of the rare pieces of evidence of donald trump's direct involvement in a catch and kill scheme. arguably, that's really the weaker part of the prosecution's case.

they have ironclad evidence of the existence of the transactions. they have ironclad evidence that michael cohen was reimbursed. they have literally checks that they put up on the board. that's to be expect instead a documents case like this. but where there's always challenges is showing direct of a defendant's intent because after all, defendants don't do bad things by writing down, hey, here's a contract of me doing my bad things. this is evidence that pecker and trump communicated about the catch and kill scheme. the mcdougal transaction is not part of these allegations, but it is in evidence as evidence of sort of this pattern or practice or what trump did in the past sochlt that may be why they want to hear it. it is an example of pecker saying back and forth to trump, should i buy it? should i buy this and take it off the market? yes. and maybe that's why they want to hear it. again, it's a lot of guesswork when it comes to these notes. >> the court employees are moving on to a third transcript portion. this is from the cross

examination between pecker and donald trump's attorney, neil bove. again, this started around 10:30 remember, so they're about ten minutes into reading the transcript or so, or less than that. we'll continue to keep our eye on what's happening inside that courtroom at this specific testimony. yasmin, you have some color? >> yeah. just fyi, 55 pages they have to read. so it's going to take some time, right? we're almost through that first phone call. they've got 55 pages to read. i imagine they're not going to go into deliberations until around 11:15, 11:30 or so. i want to talk about the phone call that danny chs just talking about and how it seems as if donald trump and as we talked about earlier, deputizing michael cohen. this phone call happened in, i believe, early summer of 2016. around june of 2016 david pecker, donald trump, remember, karen mcdougal alleges she had a

relationship, not an affair, an ongoing relationship. we heard extensively from karen mcdougal's mouth. donald trump has denied this relationship and remember, i'm making this distinction because stormy daniels has coined it as a one-night stand, the interaction she had with donald trump. karen mcdougal also in the year of 2006. she was paid $150,000 as this catch and kill scheme by ami and by the way, david pecker never paid back for that $150,000 that was paid out to karen mcdougal. just for some context around this conversation. again, it's really kind of setting up donald trump deputizing michael cohen in this moment saying i don't necessarily paying for these types of stories. david pecker saying maybe you should this time. and donald trump saying i'll have michael cohen get back to you. >> the read sounds a lots like

just a read, lacking in emotion and rhythm. our katy tur is reporting from the courthouse. she said it's kind of like putting on a shoe that doesn't fit. you can walk in it but you're not walking naturally. i wonder, kristy if it loses its impact hearing it from these court reporters versus the witness and the lawyers themselves? >> i don't think so. i mean, i think they're just -- they're trying to understand exactly what was said, they're focusing on the words and from that they'll be able to make their inferences. the one thing i will say with a call like this, i thought this was a particularly damaing call because he's very clear he knows karen mcdougal. i think that's beyond dispute. they're discussing the purchase of this story and the deputizing of michael cohen. very good for the prosecution. i thought the defense could have done more with this from their perspective. they could have said, hey, what

you hear donald trump is saying, i don't buy stories, and he didn't buy this one. ami did, and they could have really i think leaned in more to the fact that in this call you never heard donald trump specifically telling david pecker to go buy this story, to kill it, to do anything. he said what should i do, and then he doesn't act. he says talk to michael about it. i'm not dealing with it. they never really dug into the evidence and gave you an alternative narrative of how it could help their case and any theory. instead it was just kind of don't believe michael cohen, he's a liar. and i think when you start as a jury to go back and look at pieces of evidence, you're looking at how does this fit. when you have one side of the prosecution that told you, here's what you should get from this, here's what matters from this evidence, and you don't really have any competing theory, i think it's a harder task for the jury. >> and remember, they heard from

22 different witnesses. it was 80 hours of testimony that they're trying to remember and focus on what pieces are the most important. you wanted to chime in, katie, fwd. >> i wanted to say and this is from the danny cevallos criminal defense camp, you know, it could also be because it's not like you could be outvoted to have something read back. let me be clear, right, as in this could be the pro-prosecution and i could be reasonable doubt lady in the room. so if this is being read back, i could be looking for pieces of evidence to kristy's point that i could use in the deliberation room to say, listen, donald trump didn't say go buy it now. get it hushed up, whatever. we also have to look at it through that lens also. that's a possibility that the people that are voting for an acquittal are using some of this evidence to be able to use it for themselves, and it could result in a hung jury itself.

>> and just like that with katie and kristy, you have an example of how one note can be interpreted in two diametrically opposed ways, one that is incredibly favorable to the prosecution and another possibility that's favorable to the defense. there's the example right there. >> kristy brought up the fact that trump's attorneys didn't address this call at all in their closing argument. why wouldn't they? >> i think there are a lot of opportunities for criticism of the closing argument. you don't have to come up with your own theme, but you need to anticipate, especially in a jurisdiction where you're going first. i know a lot of people think in federal court because the prosecution goes first and last, that's a disadvantage. i see it as an advantage for the defense. you at least get to go second once. in other words, you get to preview what they're going to do. had this been in federal court, that four-hour closing, a lot of that would have been on the front end and the defense could have responded. instead i think when you go first as a defense, you really need to have a theme. you can't just stand up and say

he's a liar. that's a liar. everybody's lying. you need to have your own narrative. i say a theme. you don't have the burden to prove anything. you can stand up there and just say beyond a reasonable doubt, it's not here. they didn't meet their burden. i'm telling you that when you only hear that from the defense, it's a sign the prosecution has a strong case f. you can't come up with an alternate theory, what they might have done is gone through, anticipated what they thought were going to be the strongest pieces of evidence for the prosecution. knowing it was going to be four hours. arguably every piece of everyday was in play. they could have gone through every phone call and said here's our view of this phone call. here's our view of this piece of evidence. they're going to talk to you about that in their closing. this is how we see it and what we think it shows. had they done that, they might have effectively prebutted the prosecution's closing. >> they've moved on to the next request from the jury. yasmin, bring us up to speed.

>> reporter: so this is the conversation about acquiring karen mcdougal's life rights. it was a conversation between david pecker and michael cohen, in which david pecker after speaking with his attorney without disclosing the conversations that he was having with his attorney within this testimony, pecker says to michael cohen, this is what he's recounting in his testimony, that he's going to tear up this agreement over acquiring karen mcdougal's life rights. and michael cohen seems flustered, angry, as he accounted by david pecker. he says well the boss is going to be really angry with you, and then david pecker is who did you take the boss to mean, and he said donald trump. david pecker says who's going to, you know, make me whole? who's going to pay me back? again, i'm paraphrasing here. not reading verbate from his testimony. and michael cohen says the boss will pay you back. david pecker is asked who do you take the boss to mean? and he said i took the boss to mean donald trump.

this is all about acquiring the life rights for karen mcdougal at the time, and also david pecker confirming as i mentioned earlier that ami, in fact, was never paid back that $150,000 that they paid out to karen mcdougal who alleges she had this relationship with donald trump in 2006. >> catherine, of course we never heard from karen mcdougal. the jury never heard testimony from karen mcdougal. is this a sign they're zeroing in on her situation, a potential hole in the prosecution's case? >> no, and i think the reason why they didn't call her was because of stormy daniels' testimony about the sexual encounter and the details. i think the prosecution said we're not going to have another witness up there talking about donald trump's sex life. we don't need her, and they don't really -- i don't -- again, i'm not in the jury room. you might have one juror say why didn't we hear from karen mcdue i think this wm and the other testimony read back puts donald trump at the center.

he's the boss. and remember, he's the one who called pecker. you got a call from donald trump. so it wasn't like pecker calling trump and saying i have a great idea. it wasn't cohen calling pecker. it was donald trump calling, and again, i always like to give a caveat, it could also be as katie and danny said another jury who has their own version of what this means, but i think it's for the prosecution, it's key. these readbacks, because each one puts donald trump as the center. he's the boss. he's the one who made the call. the boss is going to get mad. it's donald trump, not this passive aggressive guy in the background. >> that's really interesting that you're talking about donald trump being the link in these two scenarios. i looked at it as the content was about karen mcdougal. why would they be focusing on karen mcdougal. >> this point by catherine is so important. it's donald trump's own voice. this is not an experience -- but

michael cohen saying donald trump said this. this is pecker saying that donald trump called and said this. you always want to look at the cleanest vehicle by which the testimony and the information is being provided to the jury. michael cohen by all accounts had some credibility issues going in. what's pecker's credibility issues? we haven't heard any, right? so maybe he has a little bit of a memory thing that needs to be tweaked here or there, but generally speaking, again, there was no grave attack on him on cross examination. so when it's donald trump saying it to david and then david saying t you have two of the principals in the conspiracy. two of the active participants and the third one was michael cohen. and/or allen weisselberg. they're kind of interchangeable. if you kind of look at the hierarchy or the food chain a little bit different now, you've got donald trump and david

pecker really doing a lot and then the conduits with michael cohen and allen weisselberg, right? it's kind of a way that you reconfigure the level of importance of it. everybody again has been looking at michael cohen, but catherine's right, i think david pecker actually was the real kind of tie that bound donald trump to this conspiracy, and then we've always talked about this idea that you start big and end big. start strong, end strong. you started with david pecker. you end it with michael cohen. those are your two other major conspirators. >> they're now on to jurors' request be being the third piece here, david pecker's testimony about that trump tower meeting. yasmin, what are we learning? refresh our memory again about that meeting and what they're focusing in on here in this testimony. okay. she froze. well, i'll tell you it had to do with what we read earlier, if we could put up the graphic.

david pecker talks act being the eyes and ears. i would run and publish positive stories about mr. trump and publish negative stories about his opponents. i said i would also be your eyes and ears. again, this was that trump tower meeting that was in 2015 at the start of the campaign, and kristy, talk to me about how this fits into this layer that has to be proven as far as a felony charge, right? it's the crime within a crime or a crime to cover up a crime, and this meeting is really about helping trump with his campaign. is that how you see its significance? >> right, so we've got the falsification of business records with the intent to conceal this unlawful agreement to influence the 2016 election. and this meeting is really hatching that election law conspiracy. so i think it is -- and as everyone has said, it's also the

direct evidence of donald trump's knowledge and involvement in that conspiracy. this is where pecker says it was an agreement among friends, right? like he is saying this was the conspiracy. so i think it's incredibly important to getting to that step-up crime, that meeting, if you don't believe what pecker and cohen said that happened at that meeting, that this was an agreement among them, hard to see how you can go down that road. >> here's another quote from this transcript they're reading back. the question, did you believe that would help mr. trump's campaign? answer, i believe it was a mutual benefit. danny. >> right. when we talk about what they have to prove, a lot of folks have thought of this, well, you have the falsification prove, a lot of folks thought of the falsification of business records and then the other crime. it is the falsification of business records and then, secondly, it is the election law violation. but the election law violation has to be by unlawful means and

then you get to the third level, which is three different options of different crimes, whether they be tax law violations, feca violations or more falsification of business records. so, there is -- it is not -- in many ways it is an easy path to a conviction because they only need to show really intent. they don't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the crimes. but in another way, it is a difficult path because you have three different levels and if anybody out there had a moment, as i often did, of confusion as you're parsing out the three different levels, i guarantee jurors who have not studied this case like a religious text for the last year, they may be struggling with it as well. the prosecution simplest version of the case, there are undisputed transactions and the transactions were deceptive and you can transfer it to the necessary intent you need for the additional crimes. that's the easiest path. that's why they stressed how in a way this say simple case.

the defense's mission is to make it much more complicated and if jurors get hung up on the instructions, that may enure to the benefit of the defense. this is a complicated theory of responsibility, but also one that allows for an easier path to conviction. >> i have to tell you, donald trump actually quoted, he said, it was a quote, of you from yesterday. here's what he said this morning when he was going into the courthouse. he said catherine christian from msnbc, legal analyst, difficult, says it is difficult because it is a very nuanced argument. it is never been prosecuted before. it is an argument that has never been prosecuted before and hopefully it will never be prosecuted again. is the president taking your comments in the right context? is that the right quote? >> it is a very nuanced argument, and i think this could be one of the reasons why they want the jury instructions read

back. okay, you know, conspiracy to prevent an election by unlawful means and the unlawful means are one of these three. you have to think about what does that mean and the facts. >> he's trying to suggest that that comment means that it is a weak case, and that wasn't the nature of your comments. >> very nuanced case. it is a novel. falsifying business records, first of all, if you're in new york and do investigations, you prosecute that all the time because if someone is looting their company, they're falsifying business records. so, it is charged all the time. what is different is how it is charged here. the election fraud, the federal campaign violation, that's what makes it different. so it is not an easy lift. but i think the prosecutors and josh steinglass did a very good job explaining it and judge merchan did a -- he is an excellent judge, i'm biased, but he's an excellent judge, he knows the law, he spent a lot of time -- >> you're biased because you have a lot of experience in this

courthouse. >> but he's -- this will be, if there is a conviction, they'll appeal the jury instructions. the judge said that before. but i do think the appellate division, who is the intermediary court and the court of appeals will end up -- i'm jumping ahead to a conviction, assuming there is, i think that will be the appellate issue but i think it will be upheld because judge merchan was very careful. he didn't make things up. he made sure it was very legally correct. that's my opinion. and i'm sure other people have a different opinion. >> vaughn hillyard is joining us now from outside the courthouse. what's happening inside at this moment, vaughn? >> reporter: they're currently on the third part of the testimony that was requested to be read back to them by the jurors. this is moving at a quicker tempo, we're told, by our colleagues inside, largely because it lacked the dramatics of the natural, you know, call and question from a prosecutor and then the response from the witness who is responding in real time.

and so, what you have are two court employees, we're told both with two strong new york accents, quite diligent in the reading of this, four different sections, they're currently on david pecker's testimony, as it related to the august 2015 trump tower meeting. when david pecker wassaying, qu told him we were trying to help the campaign and to do that we were going to keep this as quiet as possible, talking about the purchasing of negative stories or alerting to michael cohen of any negative stories, salacious stories, allegations from women against donald trump that he would make that phone call to michael cohen to inform him. we're told by our team inside that the jurors are diligently, several of them, taking notes, that everybody is wrapped by this. again, we're talking about five weeks of testimony that drew out over the course of mornings and afternoons. this is different. the jurors are clearly knowing what they want and why they wanted it and the fact is that they requested these particular

passages to be read back to them and they're diligent in their listening of the two court employees reading back this very specific testimony. >> okay, let me go back to the google doc because here are a couple of pieces of that readback. we're now learning it has been told to the jurors. this is from pecker, i told him we were trying to help the campaign and to do that we were going to keep this as quiet as possible. and this now in the cross examination of david pecker, by bove, he asks pecker about his recollection or lack thereof the trump tower meeting, these are things that happened a long time ago, right? pecker, yes. so they're trying to, obviously, poke some holes in maybe, like you didn't really remember this fully, do you? i want to bring in trial attorney terry austin joining our conversation now. what is your read on what they're listening to right now? >> i think one of the things the jury is trying to do is to compare michael cohen to david pecker, the fact that they wanted that august 2015 meeting, the both of them read back,

that's the beginning of the conspiracy, and i think what they're trying to do is say, look, michael cohen was an accomplice. and one of the things that the judge charged was if there is an accomplice, what he said has to be corroborated. and who corroborated it? david pecker. i think that's why they asked about those two things. as far as the meetings are concerned, they're reading the testimony back on that too. i think they want to determine pecker's credibility. and so, on that second question, regarding karen mcdougal, can we believe david pecker? that first question, you said earlier, and i agree with this, absolutely that's one of the few times donald trump is involved. he made that call. so that's why they want to hear that as well. >> what do you make of the fact that there is only so far this one request for cohen testimony. they focused a lot on trump's phone call with pecker, the pecker testimony about the life rights, the pecker testimony about this meeting and then the michael cohen testimony about the meeting. >> michael cohen is key.

we started with david pecker, we ended with michael cohen, those are the two key conspirators in the case. obviously we have david pecker who is actually corroborating everything that michael cohen is saying, so i think they're focusing on cohen, because they want to know what did he say about this conspiracy? what was it that happened at that august 2015 meeting? what did he say all of them agreed to? the fact is, what they agreed to is david pecker at ami is going to catch and kill. they didn't use those words, but they talked about the process. and so i think what the jury wants to know is what was this process, how did it all start? who was there, what did they say? that's why they're asking for the testimony, both pecker and cohen. >> we haven't yet heard the read back of the testimony from cohen yet, just some additional color from the court right now, trump sitting with his eyes closed, his thumbs in his belt buckle, he's slowly coming to, shakes

his head back and forth, picks up a post-it note, some of the color right now as they're reading back this testimony from david pecker regarding that 2015 trump tower meeting. and so, again, they're going to hear from the other testimony about michael cohen, talking about this trump tower meeting and back into deliberations here shortly, we believe, and they have been deliberating, katie, so far for about four and a half hours. they ended the day yesterday around 4:30 in the afternoon. today, they'll continue deliberations until about 6:00, we're told. that can always be adjusted as we go. we'll keep an eye out, obviously. and update everybody. but what would be a quick verdict in your experience and the longer this goes on, what does experience tell you that means? >> so, being relative when it comes to defining quick, i would say maybe by tomorrow. this afternoon, maybe. if -- remember, they go into a room together, lunch is brought to them, so it is not like they take a break to go out to eat.

so they can work and eat at the same time. they can hash through evidence, they can deliberate together. so quick would be today, with them going out yesterday, and beginning, i would say quick would be today. i also think quick would be tomorrow. i am of the school of thought that they were off for a week, they came back, they were in closings until 8:00 and change on tuesday evening and part of the reason they did that is they were given -- i want to emphasize this, judge merchan gave them a chance to stay. he didn't force them to stay. this showed a willingness to get this done, to start deliberating. i don't think they want to come back after the weekend. remember during that week they were off, they were back to their lives. they were back to their jobs. they went back to the normalcy of their worlds. this is not a normal place to be. so, i don't think they're going to be out for very long. >> we got to leave it there for this hour. thank you, everyone. that does it for us. a busy hour. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage right now.