she runs and plays like a puppy again. his #2s are perfect! he's a brand new dog, all in less than a year. when people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmer's dog, they often say that it feels like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog. it's amazing what real food can do. it is good to be back with you for this second hour of "chris jansing reports." at this hour, we're listening

for that courtroom bell. there have already been three notes from the jury in donald trump's hush money trial, including one that led some key testimony to being read back to them today. will that help them move along deliberations? plus, a former president trying to pass the time. donald trump now has a tv in his waiting room, along with his phone, and he's posting a lot on social media, railing against what he calls a ridiculous case. getting some backup, donald trump's vp contenders look to score points with complaints about the jury instructions. only problem, they flubbed a critical detail. and the long road to a verdict. a big board break down of all the steps the jury needs to take before they can deliver this historic decision. our nbc news reporters are following all of the latest developments. we begin with nbc's yasmin vossoughian live outside the courthouse for us once again. walk us through what the jury wanted to hear today, yasmin.

>> reporter: they wanted to hear four separate things when it came to testimony, three things with david pecker's testimony, one with michael cohen. when it came to david pecker, they were considering and wanted to hear testimony of an investor meeting he was sitting in on when he got a phone call from donald trump, when donald trump asked him on his opinion on the karen mcdougal case. i'm paraphrasing that craig is a nice girl, and donald trump should pay karen mcdougal to make the story go away. donald trump saying, i don't pay for the stories, they come out. david pecker saying, i think you should pay for this one. i'm going to think about it. i'll get michael cohen on it. he'll get back to you. another about buying karen mcdougal's life rights in which there was back and forth between david pecker and michael cohen. david pecker said he was tearing up the agreement when it came to buying her life rights, michael cohen saying the boss is going to be angry, being asked who was the boss, saying it's donald trump. michael cohen then going on to say donald trump will, in fact, take care of you. the boss, i should say, will

take care of you, and then two testimonies they wanted to hear when it came to that infamous 2015 trump tower meeting, both testimony from david pecker on that meeting, from michael cohen on that meeting as well. and we know that exchange quite well now at this point. michael cohen, david pecker, donald trump, in trump tower, hope hicks coming in and out. the conversation was about essentially david pecker being the eyes and ears for the campaign, making sure they can plant defaming articles about donald trump's opponents in "national enquirer," putting positive spin on pieces about donald trump, and looking out for any women that would kind of quote, unquote, come would have the wood work as donald trump was running for president. and the jury instructions, pages 6 of 35 of the jury instructions that were read or re-read. one thing that stood out within these jury instructions was basically evident inferences.

say you go to bed and it's not raining, and you wake up in the morning and the ground is wet and people are walking around with umbrellas. you can draw from that evidence that, in fact, it rained overnight. that was an example they gave in the jury instructions. another was how to find david pecker and michael cohen credible. david pecker obviously signing this non-prosecution agreement with the s.e.c. you can take that to assess his credibility, not to assess, for instance, whether or not donald trump is guilty or not guilty with michael cohen, of course, pleading guilty. lying under oath, taking that to assess his credibility, not whether donald trump is guilty or not guilty. a lot happening this morning, still inside deliberations, chris. at any moment now, or in a few days from now, we really don't know, can't even make an educated guess at this point as to when we could get a verdict. >> the educated guess is there's no way to know. yasmin vossoughian, thank you

very much. the former president absolutely does have a new addition to his courthouse waiting room, and it's a tv set. nbc's dasha burns is following that. okay. so what's that about? >> reporter: well, look, chris, the former president's time is not his own right now. he's spending the day either in the holding room or in the courtroom or being shuttled between the two based on jury questions, based on what transpires here in the court, right? so he did get a television inside his holding room. we don't know what channel he's watching. we know that he is on social media because we are seeing pretty consistent flow of posts from him today. he is posting about this case being ridiculous, saying he did nothing wrong, in fact, he did everything right. he's posting about ndas, saying that ndas are perfectly legal and common. he's also posting about complaining that he cannot be on the campaign trail right now,

which is really important for his team, as i have been talking to folks behind the scenes here. my sources say they are planning to really hit the ground running as soon as this is over, because he hasn't been able to be out there. he hasn't been able to rally supporters in battleground states, he is rallying supporters in other ways. we have been getting those fundraising e-mails sent out consistently, fundraising off of this case. fundraising off of voters showing him that they still support him. he's always asking in these fundraising e-mails, are you still with me, and of course there are some supporters here across the street from the courthouse, not a huge group, some of the same faces we saw yesterday, some new ones as we all sit here and wait and see what we get from the jury, chris. >> dasha burns, they are now seven hours and nine minutes into deliberations, thank you. well, some of the big names on donald trump's vp short list are now trying to spin the jury instructions as proof that the trial is rigged. nbc's vaughn hillyard that has more on this for us.

vaughn, explain what's going on here. give us a fact check, if you will. >> reporter: right. for weeks now, chris, we have heard donald trump take on the entirety of this case and the criminal proceedings against him. on a myriad of points. and now, over the last 24 hours you have seen as the jury began deliberations, some of the key political allies on the right come to his defense, particularly taking aim at jury instructions. if you look at kristi noem, the south dakota governor, she's posting on social media, a defense of donald trump, suggesting that the jury instructions were a violation of federal law. but then you also had marco rubio, the florida senator come out with his own tweet in which he said, judge in trump case in new york city they told the jury, they don't have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed as long as they pick one. of course that is a misrepresentation of what judge merchan said as part of his jury

instructions and what the actual crime that donald trump has been charged with is, and then you have tom cotton, the arkansas senator saying, remember, the only reason this preposterous case was brought is because joe biden is weak, dishonest and a failed president who can't run on his record. we just in the last few moments saw north dakota governor doug burgum who has been here at the courthouse with donald trump, he came out and talked with newsmax, a right wing television outlet before walking back into the courtroom here. but also, you have not seen another vp potential candidate. that would be tim scott. instead, he just posted earlier today on his social media account a video him of talking about this case. take a listen. >> donald trump is not on trial. donald trump is a victim of a witch hunt, a witch hunt brought by the only person in the courtroom who's guilty, alvin bragg, d.a. bragg, guilty of not

doing his job. guilty of frankly pandering to the democratic party. guilty of an in-kind contribution to the dnc, and guilty of perverting the justice system. >> reporter: we are just over five months away from this white house election here in november, and you see some of the biggest faces in the republican party coming staunchly to donald trump's defense, and questioning and undercutting these criminal proceedings against him, chris. >> vaughn hillyard, thank you. i want to bring in katie phang at the big board for us. welcome back. >> thank you. >> a lot of people are wondering, what if they come to the point, we might be near a verdict. what are the steps they have to take before they send a note to the judge. >> the totally incorrect law for advocates and surrogates, it has to be a unanimous verdict.

i think it's important for our viewers, chris, to walk through the law in this case so they understand it's not as complex, and it's not that difficult for the jury to get there. to refresh everybody's recollection, our 12 jurors, seven men and five women. this is specifically what they're going to go through. as you'll recall this morning. judge merchan read pages 6 through 35 of the jury instructions again to this jury, and part of those pages 6 through 35 included the following, what is the crime in this case. the jurors are going to have to unanimously agree, all 12 have to agree that donald trump falsified business records or actually caused someone else to falsify business records and did so with the intent to conceal the crime. the big question is what's the other crime. the other crime is according to the prosecution, trump violated new york election law. well, how? because he promoted an election to have an outcome by either

hiding something or helping or preventing a public official from making it into office through unlawful means. chris, this is where the analysis of unanimous jurors stops, meaning, you got to have all 12 agree up to this point. here's where the luxury comes in. again, i will say it's called the buffet of criminality. what are the unlawful means that donald trump and others used to be able to get across the finish line and conceal information and violate the new york election laws. the jury has heard, donald trump violated the federal election campaign act. he also falsified other business records or had others falsify business records. he violated tax laws. the amazing things about the unlawful means is that the jurors don't have to all agree. they could all on their own decide one of these three things happened, and as long as they come to a determination, that unlawful means were used, what do you end up with? a guilty verdict. just to recap very quickly, what

you end up doing is this, you end up having, if i can get back to your original instructions, this is your tech gremlins for us. what you end up having is the unlawful means that were used to be able to promote or prevent a public official, and then it was done through the falsification of business records as well. and so that's really what the jurors have to come to a conclusion, and it has to be a unanimous decision. but not, again, for the unlawful means. >> you handled that so well. unbelievable. tech may not work, but katie phang, ladies and gentlemen. always knows what's going on. thank you, my friend. coming up, the power of reasonable doubt, the key issues that the defense is hoping will lead to trump's acquittal on 34 counts. 4 counts . then, you ate so many of the impossible that we completely ran out. and now... ♪♪ they're backk! the footlong cookie is back at subway!

my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill.

don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that perfect pizza. and with higher stroke risk from afib not caused by a heart valve problem,... ...we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding.

while taking, you may bruise more easily... ...or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor about eliquis. (man) every time i needed a new phone, blood thinner. i had to switch carriers... (roommate) i told him...at verizon, everyone can get the best deals, like that iphone 15 on them. (man) switching all the time...it wasn't easy. (lady) 35! (store customer) you're gonna be here forever. (man) i know. (employee) here is your wireless contract. (man) do i need a lawyer for this? those were hard days. representative. switch! now that i got a huge storage and battery upgrade... i'm officially done switching. (vo) new and existing customers get iphone 15 on us when they trade in any iphone, any condition. guaranteed. (man) i really wished you told me sooner. a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to

triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today!

today our team inside the courtroom describes the jurors as remarkably engaged while judge merchan read the jury instructions they need to follow as they weigh their verdict. one of the sections read is about what's needed for a conviction. it requires, quote, proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's identity as the person who committed the crime. so as they weigh the

prosecution's case right now, are their holes that might cause jurors to stop and even as we saw at the start of court today, ask for parts of testimony to be re-read. joining us now, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the mueller probe, andrew weissmann, kristy greenberg, and diana paul are also back with us. thank you for joining us, andrew. is there something that stands out to you that if the jury got stuck, and i mean they need to have a more fulsome conversation, not necessarily something that would lead them to not have a verdict. is there a point of confusion or contention that seems most obvious to you? >> no. >> never with a jury? >> right now it has been a day. it's too soon to be thinking there's a problem or issue. normal notes in a case are read backs if you don't have the actual jury charge with you, a read back of the law makes total

sense. >> including reasonable doubt. they wanted to know what the specific wording was of that. >> first of all, that's a common thing. they wanted more than that. i'm trying to resist the tea leaf reading part of this. just remember, even on what is the legal standard and what does it mean, it's really common. think about the english language, trying to encapsulate what the level of certainty is in your head, when i said do you think that's true by probable cause or clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, those are legal words trying to get at how firmly do you believe something based on the evidence. that's not a normal concept for people in terms of thinking through the issues. that's a normal thing to be asking and for readbacks of testimony, this is a long trial. there are lots of witnesses.

they were just bombarded for eight hours with jury summations about what they should be thinking and doing and how to use the evidence, so it's normal, particularly for a first witness, who's the furthest away from where they are in time to ask that. so i just sort of think at this point, we have no idea what's really going on, and whether there's a hold out or whether they're all getting along or whether they're not. you just can't tell yet. >> one of the things we have talked a lot about, diana, and for full disclosure with the audience is what it means to have a highly educated jury. this is a very highly educated jury, not just the two lawyers we are talking about but a number of them with advanced degrees. a number of them that seem to have jobs that require a lot of if not creative, then very detailed thinking, and would that make it more difficult because sometimes the more detail oriented you are, the

deeper dive you go. does the fact this this is a highly educated jury tell us anything about it? >> i think it could make them more thoughtful as they move through the verdict sheet. but at the end of the day, they're not supposed to bring their expertise like the lawyers, into the deliberation room. as we saw earlier, judge merchan recharged the jury on circumstantial evidence and the way that they can draw inferences from the evidence. so they are already clearly talking about the elements of the crime, and they're already clearly talking about what can we draw from the things that came out during the course of the trial. >> and i know we've had this conversation before, christy, but now that we are actually in jury deliberations and i think during voir dire, one of the lawyers said i don't do criminal law, i don't know that much about criminal law, which may be the reason he ended up on the jury. although i suspect he may know more about the law or at least those terms that andrew, you

know, referenced, he understands them more easily than the average human being. but should we necessarily assume they'll have more influence with the other jurors right now? >> so at least when i was a prosecutor, the rule of thumb at sdny was do not put lawyers on your jury. >> you're just not dependable, credible people. >> that is not why. >> okay. >> i think the thinking there is they're going to be the leaders of the jury, and it is hard, i think, sometimes to separate what you may know outside from what you're given in the judge's instructions and you think they're going to be influential. it's hard to know which way that will cut, are they going to pick apart the prosecution's case or go along and understand the concepts you have. it's a bit of a wild card, and knowing they will be influential, sometimes i think

just the logic was that you generally try to stay away from it. >> when you have a defense as short as this defense was. two witnesses, one of whom was widely believed to do more harm than good, how important does cross-examination become in your experience, and how much do they go back and say, yeah, i understand that prosecutors said this, but was there a hole created by what we heard in the cross-examination? >> i would say the rule of thumb is prosecutors are really good at direct, and defense is really good cross. >> makes sense. >> because there isn't really typically much of a defense case. here, i do agree with the rise assessment that the defense case hurt the defense. once you start of put on some evidence, in some ways, it sort of changes the burdens, even though it's not supposed to because the jury learns the defense can call witnesses. they are doing things. this is it, this is your defense, and it kind of blows up, which i think it's widely

accepted, and i think you could see it actually in todd blanche's, the lead lawyer for donald trump, you could see it in the way he closed where he did not go near bob costello, which was smart. i wouldn't have either. but that tells you everything. i mean, if they thought he created reasonable doubt, they would have been latching on to him and saying, look here, look here. so everything is very much about the cross-examination. that is part of our justice system. i mean, that is the whole idea, what people said about the january 6th hearings, they were great, you know, lots of information came out, but it is correct to say there wasn't cross-examination. here, both the standard of proof, as we talked about, which is beyond a reasonable doubt and for a conviction, 12, just one holdout is everything for the defense. and everything is tested. you have to be subjected to cross-examination, which can be grueling, it can seem unfair at

times. that is part of the system. a good redirect, that is when the government gets back up is for the prosecution to basically have the jury say, oh, all of those issues that seemed to be created that i thought seemed problematic, the more that the government's able to get the jury used to -- hold on, wait for redirect, that can serve a very useful process if you're doing it correctly where the jury sort of learns, okay, what's happening on the defense is not really the whole story, and there really are answers. but, you know, that's all sort of in the eye of the beholder. the juries, unlike people who have done trials a lot, this is their first time or maybe their second. >> in this case, it's all of their first times being on a jury. >> they don't have the jaded experience of me saying, this is typical, this is what normally happens.

for them that's not the case. that's the beauty of the american system of justice. >> diana paul, thank you, andrew weissmann, never jaded, and kristy greenberg, stay with me. up next, concerns about michael cohen's credibility, what we were just talking about, the testimony the jury seems very focused on next. very focust but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪

- was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ 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 (vo) if you have graves' disease, ayour eye symptoms could mean. something more. that gritty feeling can't be brushed away. even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes.

up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com 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. i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals.

and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. (♪♪) we all need fiber for our digestive health, but less than 10% of us get enough each day. good thing metamucil gummies are an easy way to get prebiotic, plant-based fiber. with the same amount of fiber as 2 cups of broccoli. metamucil gummies the easy way to get your daily fiber.

the jury in donald trump's hush money trial got a refresher

today in witness credibility. it's a key aspect of any trial, but especially in this one, after the defense called michael cohen, the mvp of liars, as part of their request to the judge, the jury didn't just want cohen's testimony read back to them but also the testimony of david pecker. both men testifying about a pivotal trump tower meeting back in 2015 where a scheme to catch and kill stories was discussed. and corroboration is the name of the game. the jury has been instructed they cannot convict, based on michael cohen's testimony alone because he's an accomplice, so they need other testimony and evidence to back it up. joining me now, "new york times" investigative reporter, michael rothfeld, he has covered david pecker, michael cohen and the meeting in trump tower extensively. kristy greenberg and andrew weissmann are back with me. michael, it's been a long trial. there's any number of things the jury could have come back with. i wonder, what went through your mind when you heard that the first question that they had was

about the trump tower meeting? >> well, chris, as you just mentioned, both cohen and david pecker gave accounts of this meeting, so the jury asking to see testimony from both of them about it could be -- it could serve a number of purposes. it could help them evaluate cohen's credibility to see if what he said matches what david pecker said. it's also really the very beginning of the alleged conspiracy that the prosecution has said trump was involved in throughout the 2016 election campaign to influence it in his favor, so that is really crucial to the charges, and trump was personally at that meeting. so that, you know, is evidence of his direct involvement in what the prosecution says, you know, is the beginning of the conspiracy. so i think both the credibility of cohen, and trump's involvement are very important

in that meeting. >> so establishing that baseline and the keyword of conspiracy, and exactly as michael said, when you saw them back to back, which they didn't during the actual trial, they were three weeks apart, back to back, they're pretty similar. pecker said he would be trump's eyes and ears. cohen recalled pecker said he would keep an eye out for anything negative. in the grand scheme, though, of this case, how important is it? >> it's very important. we have heard, this is the meeting where the election law conspiracy was hatched, right, and you have not just -- both of them essentially saying the same thing on the three main points that the prosecution has argued were the birth of this conspiracy, the, you know, pecker being the eyes and ears, if anything negative was coming up, particularly from women, you know, we're going to kill those stories, placing negative stories against his opponents and then positive stories about

trump, those three things. and both of them corroborated each other about those three goals. they also corroborated each other in one other way, this was one of those areas where it just didn't feel like they needed to take this on. both of them talked about the importance of the "national enquirer," so pecker said they called the meeting because they wanted to see how i could help them with the campaign, and cohen's testimony on the meeting was, yeah, we understood the power of the "national enquirer." we understood it was in supermarkets and people would see those headlines, when the defense then says pecker and trump, they're sophisticated guys, you can't believe they would have thought the "national enquirer" would help the campaign, that doesn't jive with what pecker said. they're not calling pecker a liar but the whole point of the meeting is that the "national enquirer" was important. both of these witnesses say that. the defense is trying to say the "national enquirer" couldn't have influence is belied by the evidence we saw at the trial, all of the stories they planted, all the trying to kill the

stories that were negative. we saw from the meeting what happened after and just how important the "national enquirer" was. >> michael, prosecutors are trying to prove that this case links back to the campaign, obviously, as someone who has reported extensively on the trump tower meeting, what are the critical details that you think may sway a jury one way or another? >> well, i mean, the whole, i mean, there were three -- there were three basically hush money deals that were -- that came up at the trial that emanated from that meeting. the first was the doorman, former trump doorman who told a story about apparently untrue about trump having a love child. that was lately in 2015, early in the campaign. and the "national enquirer" paid him $35,000 so that they could buy the rights to that story and suppress it, and then the karen mcdougal, the playboy model who was paid $150,000 by the

enquirer in august before the election, and obviously the stormy daniels which the inquirer and cohen were involved. all three were involved in the discussions, michael cohen ended up paying stormy daniels, so, you know, that is, again, the seed for all of that, along with the positive articles like, you know, what you were just talking about, ted cruz, his father, there was articles in the "national enquirer" about whether he was involved in killing jfk. trump was very pleased with that article. you know, that came up at the trial as well. >> and this is also one situation where obviously it gets to the heart of the defense case, right, andrew? who said basically this was not about that at all. does the fact that it was one after another after another, including one that has widely been disproven, that there ever was a love child is a made up

story by a doorman at trump tower, is that important? the fact that it's not a single instance, and the timing obviously of it. >> it also goes to a point that was made with respect to stormy daniels, which is it doesn't matter whether the jury believes her or not because there's overwhelming evidence that it's the fact of the story that was important because there really wasn't challenge. david pecker's credibility is something i was expecting to be a challenge because his testimony was so devastating, and instead, stormy daniels was challenged, and i think that was for political reasons or personal reasons, but not trial reasons. because from a trial perspective, that was not the correct strategy, and there's no way that the defense legal team doesn't know that. and that's where i think you see

if we could somehow peel back the lawyers and see what was going on between donald trump and his lawyers, that is where you see that he is sometimes his own worst enemy because there's just no way they would have said you're crossing the right person. just one other thing, i totally agree. the other thing that's so interesting about the readback is that it puts michael cohen as secondary. that he is deputized. he is an agent of the defendant, and, again, this is not challenged testimony. this is, remember, david pecker's testimony came in sort of largely untested and sort of unchallenged, and you had a meeting where you're hearing about an agreement between a principle and a principle. and michael cohen is directly deputized by the candidate trump to carry out the scheme, but he's not the principal there. nicolle wallace analyzed this, you have principals and

staffers, and michael cohen was a staffer and i think that is a very useful fact that some jurors, at least, could latch on to. it's way too early to say it's going to convince everyone. that is sort of the personas that are being spelled out here, i think very much fit into what the state argued. >> who these players are are obviously an important component, michael, of anything a jury decides. let me ask you a couple of specific questions. i want to ask you this question whether jurors believe pecker more because of his long relationship with donald trump, but i would love you to speak to that. but also to whether or not michael cohen is a guy who would go rogue and get something done without letting donald trump know this is what i'm doing, and this is what i got done for you. >> sure. on your first question, yeah,

pecker is extremely credible because, i mean, he certainly doesn't have the history of lying that michael cohen has. he is actually spoke fondly about donald trump, you know, during the testimony, and says that he still considers him a friend, and he actually was very strong pushing back. i mean, andrew noted he wasn't crossed hard. there were a couple of times when they challenged his grand jury testimony, where he testified that that august 2015 meeting was in a different month, and he simply said, you know, i made an error. he pushed back pretty hard against that. i think he came off as very, you know, very truthful and credible. so i believe that, you know, as andrew said, that was pretty devastating testimony. cohen, again, there was testimony from others, like hope hicks and cohen himself, everything he did was to impress trump. he wanted credit when he would

fix things for trump, and so i don't think it's believable, you know, knowing cohen and all of the testimony about him that michael cohen would have gone out and just done these things on his own without consulting trump. it sort of wouldn't have served his purposes. it didn't fit into his m.o. as the fixer and as someone who just always wanted praise and credit from donald trump. >> seven hours and 43 minutes of deliberations, we don't know what's going on inside that room or what their impressions are, but we're going to stay on top of all of it. michael rothfeld, thank you, kristy and and ewe, you're going to stay with me. we've talked about the jury, what about the judge, a look at how he's managing deliberations down to the very finest details. . r-o-l-a-i-d-s rolaids' dual-active formula begins to neutralize acid on contact. r-o-l-a-i-d-s spells relief. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease.

now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up, i've got symptom relief. ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. and the majority of people experienced long-lasting remission at one year. 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. ♪ now's the time to ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. it's hard to explain what this feels like.

♪♪ moving piles of earth, just by moving a lever. ♪♪ towing up to 4,000 lbs with a machine that weighs less than half that. cutting grass, clearing the way, and perfecting every inch of your land. ♪♪ we could keep trying to put it into words. ♪♪ but nothing compares to experiencing it for yourself. ♪♪ you just have to get in the seat. learn more at johndeere.com/getintheseat i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance you just have to get in the seat. through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. a price thi'm 54.t increase, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month.

i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire we just got our first note from inside the courthouse in a while. we know that they were in lunch break, and lisa rubin talking to

a court officer confirms for her there have been no notes during the lunch break. we know they spent a lot of time this morning after they had sent three notes hearing re-reads both of testimony and jury instructions but nothing yet. there are almost coming up on eight hours that they are continuing to deliberate, no new information from the jury at all. of course if you go inside, it's clear. it is judge merchan's courtroom. i was until the courtroom yesterday, and i watched him deliver instructions to the jury, and like today, when part of those instructions were read back, those jurors were intently focused on him, what he was saying, they only took their eyes off of him to take notes. this has been a consistent observation, made by folks who have been witnessed this trial up close day after day. they also talk about how attentive he is to jurors comfort, and getting what they need so that they can do this momentous job before them. i want to bring in allen turk

half-timer, a jury consultant, kristy greenberg and andrew weissmann are still with us. it was something to see, judge, the way they looked at him, you could almost feel the admiration, the respect, the attention that they paid him is a sign of that respect, right. a "new york times" reporter talked to somebody from the d.a.'s office, they say this judge recognizes that what they're doing is a lot to take in. how important is this as they're going into the most important phase of this trial that they trust the judge, but he also really is aware of what they need? >> it is so important for judges to respect the time and attention of the jury. and a judge who cares about his jury will get that love back. i don't know how else to say it. you have to -- for example,

they're sitting there four hours a day in the morning listening to testimony. it's important every 50 minutes or so, hey, jurors, anybody need a break. are you doing okay. from everything i have heard, judge merchan is somebody who pays attention to the little comforts, and they respect him, and they like him, and they know what he needs. he needs a verdict. doesn't matter what the verdict is. but he needs a verdict, and i think they're going to work to give him one. >> in the inverse, not just the judge, but also, allen, obviously, the jury how important is this relationship that virtually everyone who's been inside that courtroom has observed. >> sure. judges are proponents of juries, and vice versa, the judge makes it comfortable, tries to make the task easier and manageable for the jury. it's a tough thing to ask jurors to do. they come, they're asked to look at all of this evidence, witness testimony. there's one side saying one thing, another side trying to characterize things as something

else, and okay, $40 a day, i believe, that doesn't go too far in manhattan. and so there's a lot for them to process. they look to the judge for guidance. the judge gives them the guidance they want, and when it comes to deliberation, they have something come up, if they have a need, they have a question, they can rely on the judge, and i have asked jurors over the years, 24 years of doing this, sometimes lawyers want to know from juries after they rendered a verdict, whether the judge was aligned with one side or another. i've never heard a jury say that. they have said the judge is fair and objective. >> merchan noted in the jury instructions, nothing i have said in the course of the trial is meant to suggest that i have an opinion about this case. if you have formed an impression that i have an opinion, you must put it out of your mind and disregard, the level of my voice or intonation may vary during these instructions, if i do that, it's done to help you understand, it's not done to communicate any opinion about

the law or facts of the case. this is a judge, and the jurors hopefully don't know this who has been under attack on the outside from people within trump's sphere, and donald trump himself. why, though, is it important for him to have made that point? >> well, he's clearly being dispassionate, and what's remarkable is you would not know when you go into that courtroom in any way what is happening to him, to his family. and i really think the discussion you're having, it's really important to pull the lens back in terms of the attacks on the judicial system. no one knows right now what the verdict will be. but everybody who's been in that courtroom knows that this has been a fair trial. and the reason that's important is there is no television there. there is no audio there. it is the court system now is under severe attack by donald trump. it is just like the media, the sort of fake news attack when

it's being held to account, the department of justice, when it brings charges, the state prosecutors when they bring charges. it is really important for people to know this is a fair process. and it's best to say it now, when you don't know what the verdict is. and judge merchan and what he has had to put up with, it's remarkable that you would have no idea. he has ruled for the defense, he has ruled for the government in completely dispassionate ways. >> how does he do it judge, i complete agree with everything you said. >> it is very difficult. you're a human being, you have opinions, but you have got to. that's part of the challenge of being a judge. i don't have the greatest poker face in the world, but i made sure i engaged in no expression whatsoever when i was speaking to jurors. and just in case you have raised your eyes at the wrong time, and believe me, they watch you, they see everything. you know, that is a line that

almost all of us give. it's standard part of the jury instructions, we have no opinion on this case, if you think we have, we don't. it's important. and again, andrew speaks to this. it's so important, the justice system is under attack by this man. no matter what happens. every day he comes out there and says the judge is unfair, the judge is corrupt. the judge is conflicted. and it's so wrong. >> it's clear the jury would not believe a word of it even if they heard it. that's important right now, again, as we're heading into eight hours of deliberation. kristy greenberg, alan. and the officer who spoke outside donald trump's trial. michael fanone who defended capitol during the insurrection says he was called a traitor to

his country and spit on by protesters. nbc's ryan reilly has that reporting. what else are we hearing from mr. fanone? >> on tuesday, after michael fanone had this press conference or attended the press conference outside of the trump trial in which he referred to donald trump as an authoritarian, he gave me a ring, and i thought it was to recount his day. as it happened, his mother was the target of this swatting phone call at her home in virginia, and police officers showed up to her door when she was in her robe there. he spoke to our colleagues at nbc 4 washington about it. take a listen. >> for me, the worst case scenario is always that a family member or a friend of mine will somehow, you know, suffer because of something that i've done or something that i've said. that being said this has become common place for me and my family. again, this is not a one-off

incident. this has been consistent ever since i testified before congress. there's a pattern here. you know, when i speak out publicly about what happened to me on january 6th, i receive threats. there's always a spike, and that's unacceptable. >> and that really is common place. whenever he speaks out. and sometimes even when he just attends different events. obviously he spoke before the january 6th committee, but then he went back for a medal ceremony at the capitol, and said he was harassed by current members of his former police department, the metropolitan police department, sort of mocking him during that. this is fitting into a pattern, including phone calls he has gotten whenever he speaks out against trump. remember, he was nearly killed on january 6th. there's a stun gun driven into his neck. and a donald trump supporter who believed the former president's

lies, drove the stun gun into miz neck. he suffered a heart attack, a traumatic brain injury, this had an enormous impact on his life. he was not able to secure a job in law enforcement. in fact, recently, was rejected from a loss prevention role at a retail store he applied for. there's this maybe common conception that they're sort of living the high life, these officers, because of various books they read and whatnot. that's not the reality on the ground, chris. >> ryan reilly, important reporting, thank you for that. we've got breaking news, chief justice john roberts is refusing to meet with democratic senators who want to discuss two provocative flags that flew over properties owned by justice samuel alito. those flags, an inverted american flag, an appeal to heaven both have links to the stop the steal movement. democrats believe that's evidence alito should recuse himself from cases related to january 6th and the election. in a letter to senators dick durbin and senator whitehouse,

roberts says separation of powers concerns an importance of preserving counsel against such a meeting, and that's going to do it for us this hour. stay with msnbc as we watch for any action from the jury in donald trump's hush money trial. our coverage continues with "katy tur reports" next. with "ky attur reports" next. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. deep down, i knew something was wrong. since my fatigue and light-headedness would come and go, i figured it wasn't a big deal. then i saw my doctor and found out i have afib, and that means there's about a 5 times greater risk of stroke.

symptoms like irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light- headedness can come and go. but if you have afib, the risk of stroke is always there. if you have one or more symptoms, get checked out. holding off on seeing a doctor won't change whether or not you have afib. but if you do, making that appointment can help you get ahead of stroke risk. contact a doctor and learn more at notimetowait.com

whoa! how'd you get your teeth so white? you gotta use the right toothpaste! dr. c?! ♪♪ not all toothpastes whiten the same. crest 3d white removes 100% more stains for a noticeably whiter smile. new personal best. crest.

when it comes to your wellness routine, the details are the difference. dove men body wash, with plant based moisturizers in harmony with our bodies for healthier feeling skin. all these details add up to something greater. new dove men plant powered body wash. with absorbine pro, all these details add up to something greater. pain won't hold you back from your passions. it's the only solution with two max-strength anesthetics to deliver the strongest numbing pain relief available. so, do your thing like a pro, pain-free. absorbine pro.