first, the latest headlines. a senior official in south africa's governing anc has said it's still too early to tell whether or not the party will lose its parliamentary majority. results released since the polls closed on wednesday have suggested that for the first time in 30 years, the anc will not command a parliamentary majority and may need coalition partners to govern. fourteen pro—democracy activists in hong kong have been found guilty of subversion in a landmark trial that has effectively wiped out the chinese territory's political opposition. they were among 47 people arrested in 2021 for staging unofficial primary contests for local elections. all were charged under a strict security law imposed by beijing. the former conservative mp, mark logan, has announced he is switching allegiance to labour and endorsing sir keir starmer at the general election injuly. he was until yesterday the mp for bolton north east, and is now the third tory politician to switch to labour in recent weeks. hundreds of eurostar passengers have seen their trains delayed or cancelled because of a fault with the uk border force e—gates. the home office said the issue had been resolved and it was working to restore services. we start in the us. it's just gone 4pm in new york, wherejurors in donald trump's criminal trial are deliberating for a second day. the former us president is accused of concealing a payment made to buy the silence of stormy daniels — a former adult film star. just months out from the us presidential election, he's plead not guilty to sa counts of falsifying businesses records. after weeks of testimony, the 12 new yorkjurors began their deliberations yesterday. and after about four hours, they asked to hear several pieces of evidence again — and that's what has been under way today. jurors asked to hear specific testimony from former tabloid publisher david pecker — and mr trump's ex—lawyer, michael cohen. both worked to supress stories detrimental to mr trump's 2016 campaign. it's a disgrace the millions and millions of dollars they've spent daily on this case. outside it looks like it's fort knox, like they're guarding this... i've never seen so many policemen. every day donald trump shows up to the courtroom and we hear some statement like that from him. live to new york — we can speak to our north america correspondent nada tawfik. when we spoke to you 2a hours ago, we heard that the jury had asked to hear some of the evidence again, tell us how that has played out. yes, we are at nearly 11 hours into deliberations, no new notes today, jurors are getting on with their conversations scanning the evidence to see if the prosecution has met their burden of reasonable doubt, beyond reasonable doubt. the morning was really ta ken beyond reasonable doubt. the morning was really taken up a bit by trying to read outs thejudges instructions to read outs thejudges instructions to them about how they can interpret the law, and what they can infer from certain evidence. remember, a lots of these legal questions revolve around intent, so it they want to make sure that they are applying the law to the evidence at hand. another chunk was taken up by reading outs, and really re—enacting some of the testimony that they had asked for. to court reporters reading out verbatim the questions from prosecutors to the witness david pecker and a cross—examination to david pecker, so all of that showing becausejurors to david pecker, so all of that showing because jurors are to david pecker, so all of that showing becausejurors are not to david pecker, so all of that showing because jurors are not able to have hard copiesjust how time—consuming it is when they have a question and need to see evidence again what a process that is. fix, site again what a process that is. a site to imagine — again what a process that is. a site to imagine the _ again what a process that is. a site to imagine the court _ again what a process that is. a site to imagine the court reporters - to imagine the court reporters re—enacting of that testimony, you mentioned david pecker, remind us why his testimony could be so crucial. . ., , crucial. prosecutors, in their closin: crucial. prosecutors, in their closing arguments, - crucial. prosecutors, in their closing arguments, said - crucial. prosecutors, in theirj closing arguments, said that crucial. prosecutors, in their - closing arguments, said that david pecker�*s testimony was devastating for donald trump and stands on its own, it does not need michael cohen. david pecker was the one first understand to really lay out what prosecutors said it was a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 election. they said that david pecker meeting with michael cohen and donald trump in 2015 in trump tower, agreed to be the eyes and ears of the campaign, that he would write negative stories about donald trump's opponents and positive stories about him, but crucially alert michael cohen to any stories or whispers he heard, which ultimately resulted in the national enquirer paying hush money to a former playboy model, karen mcdougal, and we heard donald trump on audio discussing essentially reimbursing david peckerfor that reimbursing david pecker for that payments reimbursing david peckerfor that payments as prosecutors alleged was captured in that audio. he did not do that because he said after legal advice he thought it was not a good move. david pecker admitted understand that he knew he was violating federal campaign laws when he made the hush money payments to benefit donald trump's campaign, so a key witness therefore prosecutors. thank you, starting work from you to cover that trial, probably back with you tomorrow to cover that on the context. let's turn to our panel. mary—anne marsh, democratic strategist and lanhee chen, republican former domestic and foreign policy adviser to governor mitt romney. and we can also bring in neama rahmani who's a former us federal prosecutor and now president of west coast trail lawyers. will start with you neama rahmani, since yourjoining the panel briefly, we heard from neither topic, she took us through what happened today in the courtroom, we heard from people saying it is quite typical forjurors to ask for certain bits of key evidence to be heard again. what did you read into the developments of the last 2a hours or so? it the developments of the last 24 hours or so?— hours or so? it is typical for “urors hours or so? it is typical for jurors to — hours or so? it is typical for jurors to request _ hours or so? it is typical for jurors to request a - hours or so? it is typical for jurors to request a read - hours or so? it is typical for| jurors to request a read back hours or so? it is typical for - jurors to request a read back and some of it is reading what is important to identify the evidence, and it is david pecker, he was the prosecutions best witness for a witness for a reason, he directly connects donald trump to this catch and kill scheme, and it seems like thejurors are not and kill scheme, and it seems like the jurors are not focus on whether payments were done, they were legitimate to michael cohen, it seems like some of them are past that, they are not focus on intense and whether the false business records were to cover up another crime. 0ne records were to cover up another crime. one interesting things in america law, each state has its own rules, and under new york law, a misdemeanor with a cover up which cannot be proven, and new york also notes that the jurors do not get those jury instructions in written form, which is why reading instruction has to happen in open court. , , ., ., court. let me bring you in lanhee chen, as court. let me bring you in lanhee chen. as the _ court. let me bring you in lanhee chen, as the deliberation - court. let me bring you in lanhee i chen, as the deliberation continues, how damaging do you think it is for the republican party? i how damaging do you think it is for the republican party?— the republican party? i think a certain amount _ the republican party? i think a certain amount of _ the republican party? i think a certain amount of this - the republican party? i think a certain amount of this is - the republican party? i think a certain amount of this is big i the republican party? i think a| certain amount of this is big -- certain amount of this is big —— baked — certain amount of this is big —— baked into _ certain amount of this is big —— baked into the ethos of the electorate, if you will. people have in their_ electorate, if you will. people have in their own — electorate, if you will. people have in their own minds a view of donald trump, _ in their own minds a view of donald trump, they— in their own minds a view of donald trump, they have their own view of the joe _ trump, they have their own view of the joe biden, and trump, they have their own view of thejoe biden, and i'm not sure the length _ thejoe biden, and i'm not sure the length of— thejoe biden, and i'm not sure the length of time of the liberations is the issue — length of time of the liberations is the issue. it is the outcome and disposition, and even then there may be disposition, and even then there may he question— disposition, and even then there may be question about how and whether it is truly— be question about how and whether it is truly impactful in the outcome of the election because we are looking at, i the election because we are looking at. ithink. — the election because we are looking at. ithink. a— the election because we are looking at, i think, a small percentage of voters _ at, i think, a small percentage of voters who— at, i think, a small percentage of voters who are undecided and really don't _ voters who are undecided and really don't have _ voters who are undecided and really don't have a — voters who are undecided and really don't have a strong point of view on where _ don't have a strong point of view on where they— don't have a strong point of view on where they would go in this election _ where they would go in this election. naturally, the group to be watching _ election. naturally, the group to be watching out for. the length of time to deliberations go is less important than the outcome. | to deliberations go is less important than the outcome. i would brin: important than the outcome. i would bring neama — important than the outcome. i would bring neama rahmani _ important than the outcome. i would bring neama rahmani back- important than the outcome. i would bring neama rahmani back in, - important than the outcome. i would i bring neama rahmani back in, because the other key witness was michael cohen, and remember when i was covering donald trump in 2016 onwards, he was seen as one of the closest people to donald trump who in the and turned on him. ihla in the and turned on him. no question. — in the and turned on him. mr? question, but the state does not want to rely on michael cohen because he is an admitted liar and convicted felon, someone who has lied to congress, the sec. the state wants to corroborate his testimony with independent evidence, so there was the talk about the recording, the donald trump voice talking about the donald trump voice talking about the $100,000 payment to karen mcdougal. notes regarding the reimbursement, $130,000 regarding the 400,000 plus that was paid over increments, that's what they want to focus on. it was a case about michael cohen alone, the state would lose. , �* michael cohen alone, the state would lose. ~ , ., michael cohen alone, the state would lose. ~ ., ., michael cohen alone, the state would lose. . ., ., , michael cohen alone, the state would lose. ~ ., ., lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a iece of lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string — lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on _ lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on this, _ lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on this, we _ lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on this, we had - lose. mary-anne marsh, how long is a piece of string on this, we had an - piece of string on this, we had an expert in the last two hours who said the jury would come expert in the last two hours who said thejury would come back by lunchtime tomorrow, but they have to be unanimous. lunchtime tomorrow, but they have to be unanimous-— be unanimous. they do, and his urest be unanimous. they do, and his purest percolation _ be unanimous. they do, and his purest percolation and - be unanimous. they do, and his purest percolation and what - be unanimous. they do, and his purest percolation and what the | be unanimous. they do, and his - purest percolation and what the jury was due _ purest percolation and what the jury was due and — purest percolation and what the jury was due and rendered _ purest percolation and what the jury was due and rendered their- purest percolation and what the jury was due and rendered their verdict, | was due and rendered their verdict, but we _ was due and rendered their verdict, but we have — was due and rendered their verdict, but we have indications _ was due and rendered their verdict, but we have indications of- was due and rendered their verdict, but we have indications of what - but we have indications of what voters — but we have indications of what voters think— but we have indications of what voters think and _ but we have indications of what voters think and in _ but we have indications of what voters think and in the - but we have indications of what voters think and in the case - but we have indications of what voters think and in the case ofi voters think and in the case of donald — voters think and in the case of donald trump, _ voters think and in the case of donald trump, if— voters think and in the case of donald trump, if he _ voters think and in the case of donald trump, if he is - voters think and in the case of donald trump, if he is found i voters think and in the case of- donald trump, if he is found guilty he would _ donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pav— donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pay a _ donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pay a price _ donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pay a price with - donald trump, if he is found guilty he would pay a price with the - he would pay a price with the voters. — he would pay a price with the voters. and _ he would pay a price with the voters, and you _ he would pay a price with the voters, and you know - he would pay a price with the voters, and you know that. he would pay a price with the i voters, and you know that from he would pay a price with the - voters, and you know that from an abc poll _ voters, and you know that from an abc poll last — voters, and you know that from an abc poll last week _ voters, and you know that from an abc poll last week that _ voters, and you know that from an abc poll last week that notes - voters, and you know that from an abc poll last week that notes that| abc poll last week that notes that 20% of _ abc poll last week that notes that 20% of trump _ abc poll last week that notes that 20% of trump voters, _ abc poll last week that notes that 20% of trump voters, not - 20% of trump voters, not independence _ 20% of trump voters, not independence are - 20% of trump voters, not - independence are undecided, said trump _ independence are undecided, said trump voters _ independence are undecided, said trump voters would _ independence are undecided, said trump voters would affect - independence are undecided, said trump voters would affect their i trump voters would affect their vote _ trump voters would affect their vote 16% — trump voters would affect their vote 16% of _ trump voters would affect their vote. 16% of that _ trump voters would affect their vote. 16% of that 20%, - trump voters would affect their vote. 16% of that 20%, said - trump voters would affect theirl vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would _ vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would reconsider— vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would reconsider their— vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would reconsider their vote, - vote. 16% of that 20%, said they would reconsidertheirvote, but| vote. 16% of that 20%, said they. would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they— would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would _ would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not _ would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not vote _ would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not vote for- would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not vote for him - would reconsider their vote, but 4% said they would not vote for him if. said they would not vote for him if he was _ said they would not vote for him if he was found _ said they would not vote for him if he was found guilty. _ said they would not vote for him if he was found guilty. in a - said they would not vote for him if he was found guilty. in a close - he was found guilty. in a close race — he was found guilty. in a close race which— he was found guilty. in a close race, which it _ he was found guilty. in a close race, which it has _ he was found guilty. in a close race, which it has to— he was found guilty. in a close race, which it has to be - he was found guilty. in a close i race, which it has to be assumed he was found guilty. in a close - race, which it has to be assumed to be, race, which it has to be assumed to he 4%_ race, which it has to be assumed to he 4% is— race, which it has to be assumed to he 4% is the — race, which it has to be assumed to be, 4% is the ball— race, which it has to be assumed to be, 4% is the ball game, so - race, which it has to be assumed to be, 4% is the ball game, so it- be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth— be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking _ be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking at _ be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking at in _ be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking at in terms of - be, 4% is the ball game, so it is worth looking at in terms of the | worth looking at in terms of the actual— worth looking at in terms of the actual physical _ worth looking at in terms of the actual physical effects - worth looking at in terms of the actual physical effects that - worth looking at in terms of the actual physical effects that it. actual physical effects that it would — actual physical effects that it would have _ actual physical effects that it would have on— actual physical effects that it would have on the _ actual physical effects that it l would have on the presidential actual physical effects that it - would have on the presidential race. neama _ would have on the presidential race. neama rahmani. _ would have on the presidential race. neama rahmani, we _ would have on the presidential race. neama rahmani, we heard- would have on the presidential race. neama rahmani, we heard closing i neama rahmani, we heard closing arguments from the prosecution and the defence this week before things wrapped up, as someone who works in this business, a formerfederal prosecutor as well, what was your assessment of how both the prosecution and defence presented their arguments? prosecution and defence presented theirarguments? i prosecution and defence presented their arguments?— their arguments? i was critical of both, the prosecution _ their arguments? i was critical of both, the prosecution went - their arguments? i was critical of both, the prosecution went far i their arguments? i was critical of. both, the prosecution went far too long, almost six hours, which is really too long any certain case, but i take issue with the defence strategy. they took the position that those business records were actually true, there were not false, there were legitimate legal d