don't know what the verdict is. whether it was guilty or not guilty. the question remaining that the judge has to decide is whether to tell the jurors, all right, fine, good on that one, now let's hear the others, or whether she will conclude that there is no point in further deliberation and would then declare a mistrial. i think i can say whatever verdict they reached on count three wouldn't count. that would be erase asked the government would have to start all over again. if the justice department did indeed want to try this again and i don't think it is by any mean certain that it would. we still have a lot of questions that we need answered at this point to know where this goes from here. >> and just from the procedural point of view, is it not custom and practice when a jury reaches a verdict, they submit what, a kind of form, a statement to the judge prior to actually being

called back. is that not normally what happens? >> reporter: yes. but i don't think they've done that here. i don't even think if the judge knows what the verdict is on count three. the only one they've reached a verdict on. they clearly haven't filled out, my sense of it is they probably haven't filled out the form yet because they don't have anything to say on the other counts. they can't finish their assignment. >> do we know that if the huge check, the biggest check which i think was the 750,000, do you know if that was written in 2008 and is that the count on which the jury has reached a verdict on? >> i don't recall the exact amount of money in count eight as opposed to count seven. >> down three.

>> reporter: right. i don't know what the amount of money is. there are a number of factors that could have played into this. how the money was of the campaign was at the time the 2008 contributions were made as opposed to 2007. obviously the edwards campaign was further along and the jury may have concluded that the money at that point was used to bolster his campaign as opposed to 2007. as a personal matter it might have been to conceal the affair from his wife. that may be the rationale for the jury but we don't know yet. i think we have to return to first principles. remember the government's theory of the case. these contributions were illegal because they were in excess -- number one. the government claimed these were campaign contributions. that was controversial in and of itself. secretarily it said they're illegal because they were over the am of money you can give to a federal candidate. so they said the donor's purpose was illegal. they then concluded that edwards

violated the law because he knew it was illegal to receive this money. he did receive it, he did spend it and he failed to report it to the federal elections commission. that is the base i of the federal charge. so it is controversial. it was controversial at the time and would certainly be the base i of any appeal if edwards were ever convicted. >> of course, rachel bunny mellon sent a letter which referred to a gift and included reference to personal expenditure including haircuts. and as we know, john edwards did like to spend large amount of money on haircuts. that would suggest that there was knowledge this was a personal gift as opposed to it being a campaign contribution. >> certainly at that point. and the judge's instruction here to the jury was that the jurors have to find at least one of the purposes, it needn't have been the exclusive purpose, but that at least one of the purposes

that the donors had in mind when they wrote these checks was to influence an election. that was the judge's instruction to the jury. that is a controversial area of the law. it has never really been tested. two former election commission took the view that these, this money did not come under the law. clearly the federal government saw it otherwise. other campaign experts have seen it otherwise as well. this is really, we're really kind of out in a territory here on this particular application of campaign finance law. >> indeed. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. thank you so much for helping us through the confusion. john q. kelly has been following this breaking news with us this afternoon. i guess you're as flummoxed as we all are. >> reporter: absolutely. i want to go back to something you brought up a few minutes ago and you were dead on. it has to go with the usual drama and taking a verdict. and a big part of that is the jury will come into the

courtroom. the jury foreperson will hand the verdict sheet to the clerk. will hand it to the judge. the judge will then check the verdict sheet to make sure all questions are answered. everything is appropriately filled out. it will go back to the clerk and the jury foreman. that way you don't have any wild cards or surprise like what that here. >> that's what i thought. i thought there was a standard disciplined procedure practiced in all court proceedings. >> reporter: it seem like judge eagle has brought them to the courtroom and said tell us what you've got without making sure everything was in order. it has put everybody on their heels. the jury is thinking, this will be a problem. they might have thought they did their job by reaching a unanimous verdict. they may have thought they're done. now they're being told to go back and see what they can agree on in the other five counts which appears to be almost

insurmountable if this is how long it took to reach a verdict on one down. so they're going to be upset. they're going to be angry and frustrated and not able to focus on the evidence for a while at least. and the judge and the attorneys and mr. edwards are all extremely upset and perplexed and it has been a horrible thing to be put through for the last hour for everybody. >> i'm assuming the defense will use this procedural breakdown if that's what's happened to call for some kind of mistrial. what does the government do? if they've reached a verdict on one down and we don't know what that is. does the government take the one charge and go back to court? or is it obligated to go for the full six once again right through the proceedings? >> reporter: pete williams, whose mind is greater than mine, was saying earlier recent supreme court decision indicated

that you couldn't take a partial verdict under those circumstances. if there is even an acquittal on the one count, you can't take that. you have to start over again. but it must be different facts. we also have the double jeopardy and the constitution. if you're charged and acquitted after a trial of something, you don't to have face the same charges. so it will be interesting. and we will find out at some point by one form or another what that verdict was on that one down. whether they agree on the others or not. >> bg back to the evidence briefly, you know of that letter written by rachel bunny mellon where she referenced personal issues, like john edwards' expensive haircuts. that would suggest she was contributions that were not campaign contributions. they were private gifts as it were to the man himself. now how did the government, the federal government overcome that in order to get this to trial?

>> reporter: there are issues, i couldn't put it in the exact time line right now. at one point the bunny money mellon woman level said let john edwards pay for his own mistress. at some point she didn't intend for the money to be used to cover up his illicit affair and his love child. but you're right. in both the counts two and three, the 2007 and 2008 counts, the government had to show that john edwards knowingly and intentionally took that money to use for his presidential aspirations and not his personal needs. so it is going to be interesting, how the jury made the distinction. it could be one of two things. either they felt edwards didn't know the money in 2007 was being used to cover up the affair or it could be in 2008. there's some indication he did know or that mellon didn't want it to be used for personal needs

at that point. >> okay. former prosecutor john kelly, stay with us. the jury has reached a verdict on count three in the proceedings of john edwards accepting and receiving illegal campaign contributions from raef he will mellon. we don't know whether the verdict is guilty or nil. there has been some commotion in the court. the judge has ordered some period of break. a recess. we're waiting to hear more on this. i'm joined now by msnbc political analyst david corn who is with me in new york. john edwards, 58. an impressive career, both politically and professionally. but even regardless of the outcome of this. i'm assuming that his reputation is now solid permanently, isn't it? >> what come after toast? it is really hard. i've heard commentators in the past few days as we've awaited the verdict talk about possibilities for rehabilitation. and it is hard to see how that

happens given how far he's fallen in this soap opera drama. in america, we do have often second acts, third acts, fourth acts and i will remind that you we had a president who managed to stay in office through a pretty bad personal scandal, too. so john edwards who was talented and smart and still has some charisma left, may find a way down the road. and he is young. ten years from now, who knows where he'll be? so it is not impossible. it is just not very likely in the near term. >> you say he has charisma. given that he went on to network television, i was anchoring the broadcast when bob woodruff interviewed him and he brazenly lied to the camera. then knowing full well that he had a wife with terminal cancer at the time. none of that conduct has made him a particularly sympathetic camera. >> if we sent into the woods everybody who lied on tv -- the

woods would be very crowd asked empty around here. yes. he has done, and it's an interesting thing to think about the differences between his lies about a personal affair and affairs, versus say, someone lying about a war. the reasons for war. why this sort of kicks him out of the game and the others don't do that for people who practice that type of falsehood. but putting all that aside, what he's done rates pretty high on the, this is it scale. that's why i think it is hard to see him coming back around. when i say charisma, you're right. he has lost all sympathy. there's no one rooting for him. more people rooting for bill clinton and others. i still think he has certain personal characteristics. >> and talents. >> that may be brought to bear down the road. if he came to me for advice, i would have none. i don't know how he gets there. but life is long, ten years, 20 years, who knows? he may find a way to come back.

that would be a heck of a story. right now he is about as low as a public official in this country has ever fallen. >> indeed. stay with us. do stay with us also. we'll be right back with more information. ♪ [ male announcer ] if paula ebert had her way, she would help her child. deoxyribonucleic acid. he knew that. [ male announcer ] with everything. go! goooo! no. no no no no no. mommy's here [ male announcer ] but that kind of love is...frowned upon. so instead she gives him new capri sun super-v. so he gets more of what he needs... without all the "her" he doesn't think he needs. with one combined serving of fruits and vegetables. new capri sun super-v. do you really think brushing is enough to keep it clean? while brushing misses germs in 75% of your mouth, listerine® cleans virtually your entire mouth. so take your oral health to a whole new level. listerine®... power to your mouth™.

but they haven't experienced extra strength bayer advanced aspirin. in fact, in a recent survey, 92% of people who tried it said they would buy it again. visit fastreliefchallenge.com today for a special trial offer. yeah, you -- you know, everything can cost upwards of...[ whistles ] i did not want to think about that. relax, relax, relax. look at me, look at me. three words, dad -- e-trade financial consultants. so i can just go talk to 'em?

just walk right in and talk to 'em. dude, those guys are pros. they'll hook you up with a solid plan. they'll -- wa-- wa-- wait a minute. bobby? bobby! what are you doing, man? i'm speed dating! [ male announcer ] get investing advice for your family at e-trade.

we're following news out of greensboro, north carolina. some confusing legal developments in the john edwards trial. our correspondent lisa myers has been in north carolina for the duration of these proceedings. she joins us now. lisa, can you make sense of what has happened this afternoon? >> reporter: well, martin, i can tell you the latest. the judge has just announced that she is going to ask the jury to continue deliberations on the five counts on which they have been unable to reach

unanimous verdict. they have not yet told us what their verdict is on the one count on which they have reached a conclusion. now, she said she is going to ask the jury to at least go in and keep talking for the afternoon. she didn't indicate whether she has asked them, will ask them to deliberate beyond that. she did say i want them to know, they are not prisoners and they have been conscientious. so i think there will be a limit to how much longer she asks them to go but for now she'll send them back to keep. one of the differentiations that the defense made between the two charges, the two counts involving money from heiress bunny mellon, in the year of 2008 which is the year they were able to reach a verdict, john edwards was only a presidential candidate for about a month. after, that he was no longer an official candidate. so it is possible that they decided he was not an official candidate that year and therefore, he wouldn't have been subject to these laws. that's a quick analysis from those of us who have been in the

courtroom would indicate but we have no way of knowing exactly what this jury has decided. >> but what led the jury to decide that they would make a disclosure to the judge about a verdict on one count and not -- even though they haven't decided on the five remaining? were they not told to come back to the judge at the point in which they had reached verdicts on all six? >> reporter: well, that is an excellent question, martin, and i wish i could shed some light on it. one of the questions we've had for a number of days now. does the jury know they can tell the judge that they can't reach a conclusion on some of these counts. apparently they felt since they reach a conclusion on one count, they came back and then, we have reached a decision. then they said, well, we've reached a unanimous verdict only on this one count. and on everything else, we're not unanimous. that's when the judge immediately september them back into the jury room. >> that sounds as though this judge appears to have lost some kind of measure of control over

this jury. this is a procedure. this is a very disciplined process i'm taken aback that they would go to the judge with one down and leave the rest off the table having not reached a verdict on any of them. it sounds like they've taken on an action that they're not obligated to take. >> i think that the judge herself was surprised by what the jury had to say. she said she had to take a five-minute recess because she didn't have with her the materials she needed to move forward. so i don't think she had any hint when they came in that this was not a complete verdict. i think that she thought that the jury had actually concluded its deliberations and reached a verdict on all the counts. so i think the judge in some respects is almost as surprised as you are. >> nbc lisa myers, our senior investigative correspondent. thanks so much.

stay with us. we'll need you to help us with this broadcast. we'll be back more on the bizarre developments. [ male announcer ] we began with the rx. ♪ then we turned the page, creating the rx hybrid. ♪ now we've turned the page again with the all-new rx f sport. ♪ this is the next chapter for the rx. this is the next chapter for lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution, in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards, from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better.

♪ did i ever think i would have heart disease. she just didn't fit the profile of a heart event victim. she's healthy, she eats properly. i was pushing my two kids in a stroller when i had my heart event. i've been on a bayer aspirin regimen ever since. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone. so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i know if i take my bayer aspirin i have a better chance of living a healthy life.

[ male announcer ] learn how to protect your heart at i am proheart on facebook. that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm. for half the calories plus veggie nutrition. could've had a v8. with hand-layered pasta, tomatoes, and real mozzarella cheese. but what makes us even prouder... is what our real dinners can do for your family. stouffer's. let's fix dinner. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about market volatility. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 in times like these, it can be tough to know which ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 way the wind is blowing. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, we're ready with objective insights about ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 the present market and economic conditions. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 and can help turn those insights into ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 a plan of action that's right for you. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 so don't let the current situation take you off course. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 talk to chuck.

ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 we are following somewhat confusing breaking news from the john edwards trial. let's bring in savannah guthrie. and justice correspondent pete williams. he's joining us from d.c. what has happened? >> i think that's an unanswered question. first of all, as far as we know the jurors didn't directly tell the judge that they're dead locked to the other counts. certainly a lot of people suppose that's exactly what the swagts is with you they didn't come out and say it as we understand it. they do have a verdict as to one of the counts but the judge does not want to reveal that verdict until she has given the jurors another chance to deliberate. this is not something that is uncommon in cases. the normal situation is a jury that has been deliberating a while will tell the judge we're

deadlocked. we can't agree. in the normal course of events a judge will read them a special instruction that essentially tell them to get back in there and deliberate some more. that no future jury would have any easier time with the evidence. i don't believe that the judge read that charge to this jury. instead, did send the jury back to tell them to continue to try to reach a verdict as to these other counts. the other question i have is the judge did tell them. i just looked through the instructions one more time and nowhere in there does it say, if you can't reach vaerd, you can tell the judge that, say that you're dead long, send a float to the judge. the reason those things aren't usually in jury instructions is pretty obvious. they don't want to encourage that result. but it is a very perplexing situation and unfortunately for all involved, a waiting game this afternoon. >> thank you, savannah.

pete, can you further expand on this? >> reporter: if the jury does come back. the judge has only so much authority here. she cannot make the jurors agree if they disagree. the judge can't do that. the jurors vote and if they disagree, that's that. that's where mistrials come from. if at the end of the day, the end of however many more days of deliberation there are, they say this is the best we can do. we can only be unanimous. and they must be unanimous in a criminal case. we can only be union an plus on this one down. i've been tooug several former prosecutors about this and what they say is the judge must enter the verdict on that count and declare a mrs. trial on the others. so it is possible it will have the verdict on one down. it is not a package. it is not all or nothing. the judge will have to accept whatever it is the jury can do. if the jury says we can be agree on the others and that's that, the judge can tell them to go

back and try again only so many times. >> and of course, it is worth saying that each of these individual counts carries a potential maximum prison sentence of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000. >> going back to savannah, there is been a great deal of conjecture about the conduct of the jurors. there is been some suggestion that john edwards has been smiling at one particular juror. that jurors have been passing notes. does this sound to you like a jury that is disciplined and focused on the task or is today's kind of strange aberration offering the judge one down, one verdict, is this indicative of a jury that to some extend has been fairly ill disciplined? >> let's break it down a little bit. the reports that came from some inside the courtroom about some of the jurors dressing alike or smiling at john edwards, all of those reports had to do with alternate jurors. these are jurors that sat for

the four weeks of trial. heard all the evidence. but at the close of the case, the real jurors were sent off to deliberate and these four alternates who were the sub of the reports were sitting in another room with nothing to do for these past two week or so of deliberations. so what they were allegedly doing, and again, it is only some reports that say they were doing that, has no bearing on the deliberations that have gone on so far. in terms of the jurors being conflicted about these counts, about having a verdict on one count but not others, it is perplexing, it is frustrating but it is not totally unprecedented, as pete mentioned. there have been lots of cases where judges were forced to accept a partial verdict and declare mristrials to the other counts. she is on delicate ground here. anything having to do with deliberations and the jury. the judge wants to make sure she is sticking very close to the law. these kinds of jury issues are

ripe for appeal in the event of a convict. >> and going back to you for a moment, pete. the very charges themselves and the proceedings themselves have been the subject of a great deal of comary with many suggesting the federal government wasn't on very strong turf in the first place. >> that's right. and lisa myers had a tantalizing suggestion that maybe their verdict is that they're acquitting on this because john edwards was a candidate for only such a brief time in 2008, the one year on which they apparently have agreed. you can be certain they will appeal and that many legal scholars believe he has a very solid ground, john edwards does, for appealing. this is a novel application of campaign finance law here. there are several people who are familiar with campaign finance law. former chairman of the federal elections commission who made

daily decisions about how campaign law worked. they said it was never intended to apply to a case like this. so it is a question that will surely be appealed and many people think if there is a conviction, it has a pretty good shot of being overturned on appeal. >> indeed. pete williams and savannah guthrie, thank you so much. stay with us. we'll continue reporting on this developing news. [ shapiro ] at legalzoom, you can take care of virtually all your important legal matters in just minutes. now it's quicker and easier for you to start your business... protect your family... and launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com, we put the law on your side. and launch your dreams. you can't argue with nutrition you can see. great grains. great grains cereal starts whole and stays whole. see the seam? more processed flakes look nothing like natural grains. i'm eating what i know is better nutrition. mmmm. great grains. search great grains and see for yourself.

throughout our entire lives. ♪

one a day women's 50+ is a complete multi-vitamin designed for women's health concerns as we age. ♪ it has more of seven antioxidants to support cell health. that's one a day women's 50+ healthy advantage. to the breaking news on the john edwards case, a very unusual story unfolding. the jury with a verdict on just one count, now sent back to decide on the other five facing john edwards. gabe gutierrez is outside the courthouse in greensburg, north carolina. he's been monitoring the trial. what do we know at this moment? as i understand it, the judge having heard that they had reached a verdict, we don't know what that verdict is, sent them back to continue their deliberations. but apparently some of the jurors have already indicated to the judge that they can't engage in deliberations tomorrow

because some of them have to attend events like graduations. is that right? >> that's right. good afternoon. some of the jurors did say they have to leave early so the jury was expected to be dismissed tomorrow at 2:30. we knew something was going on earlier today. because the jury for the first time said they wanted to work through lunch. that led some to speculate that they had a verdict. within an hour or two the judge called everyone into the courtroom. some of the media was led into an overflow courtroom which is where we were told where we would be if there was a verdict. the marshal thought there was a verdict. the judge even asked the jury, did they have a verdict on all six counts. seemingly expecting an answer one way or the other. the foreman said we only have a verdict on one count. that led many in the room to audibly gasp. many have us had never heard of such a thing. a count three as we've been

discussing, that is the count involving the charge involving illegal campaign contributions from rachel bunny mellon to john edwards in 2008. as my colleague lisa myers mentioned, we do not know what the verdict is. whether guilty or not guilty. the jury has told the judge they haven't reached a verdict on the other counts. the judge had a five or ten-minute recess. then brought them back in and said it will continue to deliberate for the remainder of the afternoon. right now it a waiting game to see how this plays out. many legal observers here have never heard of such a thing. >> but gabe, does that mean, and i'm not being facetious at all. did the jury not understand that they were charged with finding a verdict on all six? that it wasn't acceptable legal practice for them to literally come in and offer one verdict per day or per week. but the judge had actually ordered them to go reflect on these six charges and come back when they had reach a verdict on all six.

>> reporter: that's a very good question, martin, and we do not know what's going on in the jurors' minds. some legal experts have been led to wonder why, how long it would take for the judge to read the so-called allen charge. essentially tell the jurors that if they've reached an impasse, that they have to come one a verdict and that has not been done yet and we cone know if that will happen. we don't know if the jurors are stuck. how badly they're stuck on the other five counts. we just know that they've reached a decision on that one count. down three. and they're going back to clinton rate. they've already deliberated almost 50 hours. this come after 17 days of testimony so it has been a very long trial. you have to remember it is not unprecedented for other juries to take even longer when deciding high profile cases like this. this case involves a loft exhibits. the jury has asked for around 500 exhibits that they've had to pore through. this is not easy campaign

finance law. it is very tricky. it is not easy. the nuts and bolts are very difficult for a jury of eight men and four women to come to an agreement on. >> gabe gutierrez, thank you so much. let's bring in david corn, let's bring in krystal ball. if i can start with you. in following this case, it has been very difficult for anyone to decide who they're rooting for. the government case has been problematic to say the least. there was a letter from bunny mellon, that it was personal. you have a defendant who has clearly lied about his affair with rielle hunter, and also lied about conceiving a child with her. >> you're exactly right. a lot of strange emegss going on and we can guess the jury is struggling with the same thing. he is obviously an immoral person who did some of the worst things that you can imagine to his wife and to his family and

to the dignity of the presidency, honestly. it is unbelievable that he was running for president and carrying on this affair while his wife is dying of cancer. the whole thing is unreal. so on the one hand, you have this clearly awful immoral behavior. on the other hand you have a case that seems pretty weak. as we're watching all this money being thrown around with super pacs, was it really illegal what he did? this is like the least of our concerns in terms of campaign finance. >> do you agree with that? >> do i. from the legal perspective, the government is making the case that these were contributions and they were illegal because they were above the limit of what you're allowed to give. but if he had declared bribery money, blackmail money, cover up my affair money on his reports and kept it below the him -- >> that wouldn't have been a problem. >> that wouldn't be allowed

either. i know the people there looking for these reports at legitimate and illegitimate itemized contributions and expenditures. so he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. >> and his defense is, i'm a wealthy guy. why wouldn't i just spend my own money? and his answer was this was used to hide an affair from my wife which is awful but not illegal. >> and it wasn't for his campaign. that's his claim. >> there was the time line. giving him money for haircuts. if someone is running for office and you say he should be dressing better but he's a friend of mine. and i'm going to buy some suits for him. is that a contribution or not? these are hard things to sort out. it depends on the existence of the relationship. whether did you this before the campaign and all these other things. but in this case, there is so much gray here and this potential mistrial at the end here is certainly making the

government look bad. at least making it look like a difficult case. makes it unlikely to proceed. most legal experts at this point in time say that he has a very good chance on appeal should he end up being convicted on any of these counts. >> you're an esteemed journalist. you just publish ad book showdown, don't you think the "national enquirer" deserves some problems for this, given that -- you laugh but many people attacked the national inquire where they were breaking this story at every level as it evolved. >> no. they get credit for this. >> and they will never let us forget that. >> that doesn't mean they get most of their stuff right. >> but on this specific story. >> this story -- >> a story that many people in mainstream journalism were not interested in pursuing. >> we know from the last couple decades that main stream journalists and myself included, it is sometimes very dicey how to pursue stories like this.

i can't tell you how many times people have come to me with allegations about political leaders, including people like newt gingrich that turn out to be true and you believe to be true and you have a certain amount of evidence. it is still not good enough to go with for public republican indication or posting. these are very difficult issues so people do shy away from that. but this is the type of stuff, the "national enquirer" thrives on. >> if someone tells you something about newt gingrich, it is most likely true. you're a fool for assuming that was not right. but going back to john edwards as an individual, he is only 58 years of age. during the election campaign when he was running, many people were very touched and moved by his concern for the poor. he made poverty such an important issue. it almost feels as though his political career has been utterly decimated by his personal conduct, given the kind of principles on which he was trying to stand.

>> that's exactly right. he has been exposed to be posturing, hypocritical, et cetera. to your point,er he had this very populist message that appealed to a lot of people and actually to a lot of women. when i was running for congress, i made my own calls all which of were perfectly legal, by the way, but i spoke to a lot of women who were just absolutely humiliated that they had supported john edwards to a great extent during his campaign. and he had a strong following. a lot of women who really supported his message and just felt awful when they found out how he had been treating his family and his wife. >> this is an interesting question because maybe he actually believed about two americas. i remember hearing his speech for the first time and i found it very moving and effective. it could have been totally sincere. i'm not saying that it was but it's possible that it was. he was a complete louse in his

own life. >> two americas, two john edwards. that's what you had. >> there seem to be, dominique strauss khan has had similar allegations against him for improprieties and he is also a sort of champion of the people and there's some parallels there that are interesting. you have someone also living very lavish lifestyle as well and then being a champion of the poor. it is a hard thing to reconcile. >> stay with us. and you stay with us. we'll have much more ahead. [ male announcer ] hey, isn't that the girl who tore out your sill-beating heart? ah, being a vegan is really working out for her. [ bowling pins ] ok, how's this gonna play? mi amore. [ chicken clucking ] [ male announcer ] ah common g., try manly, girls dig that! [ screams ] [ male announcer ] no, no, no, think smooth, but animal. like a werewolf in finance. diversify [ elephant trumpeting ] [ male announcer ] ok don't sweat it. just do your thing, do your thing. hey!

hey! [ male announcer ] boom! definitely a little bit epic. stride. [ male announcer ] boom! definitely a little bit epic. free-credit-score-dot-com'sur boargonna direct you ♪ts ♪ ♪ to check your credit score before it gets too late ♪ ♪ and you end up strapped for cash ♪ ♪ patching your board with duct tape ♪ ♪ so hit free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ find out what credit's about ♪ ♪ or else you could be headed for a credit wipeout ♪ offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com™. an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement, if your car is totaled, we give you the money for a car one model year newer. liberty mutual auto insurance. of how a shipping giant can befriend a forest may seem like the stuff of fairy tales. but if you take away the faces on the trees...

take away the pixie dust. take away the singing animals, and the storybook narrator... [ man ] you're left with more electric trucks. more recycled shipping materials... and a growing number of lower emissions planes... which still makes for a pretty enchanted tale. ♪ la la la [ man ] whoops, forgot one... [ male announcer ] sustainable solutions. fedex. solutions that matter. the calcium they take because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption. that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum. i wish i could keep it this way. [ dr. rahmany ] you see, even after a dental cleaning... plaque quickly starts to grow back. but new crest pro-health clinical plaque control toothpaste can help.

it not only reduces plaque... it's also clinically proven... to help keep plaque from coming back. plus, it works in these other areas dentists check most. ♪ new crest pro-health clinical plaque control toothpaste. life opens up when you do. for extra plaque protection try new crest pro-health clinical rinse. it's been a busy and somewhat confusing hour in greensboro, north carolina. unusual developments. we learned first of a verdict and then it was only a partial verdict. john q. kelly is a form he prosecutor and civil attorney. they reached a verdict on down

three. which was that john edwards accepted and received illegal campaign contributions in 2008 from rachel bunny mellon. we don't know what that verdict is and they haven't reached a verdict on the other five counts. as i understand it, that count was one of the weakest given the fact that during that period, john edwards was only very briefly a presidential candidate. >> martin, either way that the unanimous agreement on down three does not bode well for john edwards. i mean, if they can only agree to acquit him on count three, that means there are serious reservations in a camp looking for a conviction on the other counts against edwards. on the other hand, if he is convicted and that was the weakest count against him, then the others could very well follow suit. the other five counts. either way there has to be a lot of concern in the edwards camp that a verdict was reached either way on count three. >> so in your view, what do you

think has been happening today with that jury? i know that you have no hotline to any individual member of the jury but what do you think is going on? >> well, i think we've seen something you've never seen in a federal court. this type of forum which is an extraordinary hiccup. in the jury room, i think there was just ambiguity what the judges instructions to the jury that they were never inform. i think it was savannah who appointed out earlier, she had gone over the judge's charge and they were never told if they're deadlocked, they should inform the judge of that. what they did do is say we've reached a verdict them left out the point that it was just one count and didn't indicate whether they were deadlocked or not. they're not done. even if the jury were to come back at 4:30, well, we are deadlocked on the other five.

the judge will bring them back tomorrow and deliver the allen charge which mean no jury will be able to decide this any better than you 12 and go back and see if you can resolve your differences. and they'll at least be send back to deliver that charge and beyond that. so this is a never ending saga right now. a little bit of pandemonium in there and a lot of mixed emotions with the jury themselves who probably thought their job was done and they're not close right now. >> indeed. former prosecutor john q. kelly. do stay with us. let's return to our senior investigative correspondent, lisa myers. do you have any further details of what has been going on for us? >> reporter: yes, the judge has sent the jury back to deliberate. she said those of you jurors who have strongly held convictions. i'm not asking you to give them up but i am asking everyone to go back and try harder to reach a unanimous verdict on these other five counts. she went on to say that you all may find that you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict on

these counts. if so, you need to send me a note to that effect. she did not indicate how much longer she is going to ask the jury to deliberate. the jury is supposed to be in until 4:45 this afternoon under the current schedule. she told people not to go far so she is clearly thinking that perhaps a jury will send her back a note during this time saying they simply can't reach a unanimous verdict. it is also possible that they will keep trying and will be back here in the morning. but that's as much as has happened in the courtroom since we last spoke. >> our colleague gabe gutierrez said when this happened, there was an audible gasp in the courtroom. >> yes. i don't think anyone, i think everyone who had been sitting there waiting for what we thought was a verdict on all six counts. i think the judge was expecting a verdict on all six counts because she didn't have the materials with her she needed to move forward. one of the things that it will be interesting to see, among many of us who have been in the

courtroom all these days, we considered and certainly our legal analysts considered down three among against john eddsy a presidential candidate for about one month in 2008 and the checks from bunny mellon which were cashed, were not cashed that year until after he had suspended his campaign. and this was an argument the defense drove home again and again and again. look, he was only a presidential candidate for a short period of time that year. the check came later. and while yes, he had vice presidential ambitions and other ambitions, the campaign finance laws don't apply just because you have ambitions. you have to be an official candidate. >> now, lisa, we know that the court day for tomorrow is going to be shortened because a number of jury members have said they have personal things that they wish to attend like a graduation and so on. when do we expect the proceedings to adjourn, or the deliberations, sorry, to cease

today? how much longer? >> reporter: the jury had been scheduled to complete its deliberations today. as 4:45. that was of course, before all this happened. i can't imagine she would ask them to stay much longer than this unless they tell her they would like to stay longer. i think the jury, when they sent that note, they completed their work, so she asked them to go back and try harder. but i don't get the sense that the way she couched it that she's expecting some radical breakthrough in the next hour or two. >> indeed. nbc's senior investigative correspondent, lisa meyer. thank you, lisa. and we'll be right back. whole grain, multigrain cheerios! mom, are those my jeans? [ female announcer ] people who choose more whole grain tend to weigh less than those who don't. multigrain cheerios the day starts with arthritis pain... a load of new listings... and two pills. after a morning of walk-ups, it's back to more pain,

back to more pills. the evening showings bring more pain and more pills. sealing the deal... when, hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. it can relieve pain all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lois... who chose two aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. by what's getting done.. measure commitment the twenty billion dollars bp committed has helped fund economic and environmental recovery. long-term, bp's made a five hundred million dollar commitment to support scientists studying the environment. and the gulf is open for business - the beaches are beautiful, the seafood is delicious. last year, many areas even reported record tourism seasons.

the progress continues... but that doesn't mean our job is done. we're still committed to seeing this through.

an hour of confusing legal developments in the john edwards case trial which is ongoing. let's bring in msnbc political analyst john alta and republican

strategist ron christie. the verdict today reached a verdict on count 3. we don't know what the verdict is. they told the judge, and the judge, somewhat surprised, said, actually, you have to give verdicts on all six, and they now are continuing deliberations. we're expecting deliberations to continue to about 4:45. do you think this case, given its complexity, should have been brought in the first place? >> no. the jury today is as confused as the prosecution has been. there was no violation of campaign finance laws here, martin, and there are many independent lawyers who don't have any connection to this case on both sides of the aisle politically will testify in the court of public opinion to that fact. this was an extraordinarily weak case. john edwards is a skunk, but he's an innocent skunk when it comes to the particular laws at issue here. not just -- >> not a felonious skunk. >> not just for the reasons that lisa meyer mentioned, that the

checks weren't even deposited until after his campaign was over, but because this was not about trying to make illegal campaign contributions, it was about trying to cover up a tremendously embarrassing affair. and there's no law that prohibits him from doing that. >> you're a lawyer and you're also a republican. do you think the call for this charge should have been brought? >> i agree wholeheartedly with jonathan. >> you do? >> that might be a first. but he absolutely is right. to prove that he tried to conspire, for one thing, you can't find that. the evidence isn't there. looking at count 3 speckificall as jonathan pointed out, lisa meyer said, he had already cashed those after the campaign. i think the government went after him for whatever reason he did, but as an independent lawyer, i look at this and say it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. never should have been brought.

>> a little known fact that the prosecutors in north carolina who first brought this case worked against edwards in political campaigns for years. they were mortal political enemies. it's really not right to do that. and then the obama justice department, you know, kept this going because they thought they would pay a political price for developing the charges. so this has been political through and through, and i personally have a problem with political prosecutions, even if it's a type of guy who is cheating on her wife when she had cancer. >> indeed. jonathan, ron christie, thank you so much fofr joining r join. we'll be right back. this olympian's mom has been doing it for years. she's got bounty. in this lab demo, one sheet of new bounty leaves this surface cleaner than two sheets of the leading ordinary brand. bounty has trap and lock technology to soak up big spills and lock them in. let the spills begin.

p&g. proud sponsor of the olympic games. perfect golden color. rich in fiber. my dad taught me, and i taught my son out there. morning, pa. wait... who's driving the...? ♪ 99 bushels of wheat on the farm, 99 bushels of wheat ♪ [ male announcer ] yep, there's 8 filling layers of whole grain fiber in those fun little biscuits... so they stick with you, all morning long. kellogg's® mini-wheats cereal. [ mini ] yee haw! a big breakfast in a little biscuit. ♪ power surge, let it blow your mind. [ male announcer ] for fruits, veggies and natural green tea energy... new v8 v-fusion plus energy. could've had a v8. woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this?

[ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen. do you really think brushing is enough to keep it clean? while brushing misses germs in 75% of your mouth, listerine® cleans virtually your entire mouth. so take your oral health to a whole new level. listerine®... power to your mouth™. the economy needs manufacturing. machines, tools, people making stuff. companies have to invest in making things. infrastructure, construction, production. we need it now more than ever. chevron's putting more than $8 billion dollars back in the u.s. economy this year. in pipes, cement, steel, jobs, energy. we need to get the wheels turning. i'm proud of that. making real things...

for real. ...that make a real difference. ♪ thanks so much for watching on this very busy breaking news hour. dylan ratigan sheis here to taks forward on the very latest case. >> before making the transition, i couldn't help but think about the conversation you were just having about the