>> president trump: these charges are rigged. i mean that, mother teresa could not beat those charges. this is five weeks. five weeks of really essentially not campaigning although i took a big lead in the polls of the last few weeks. because i think the people of this country see that this is a big deal. >> sandra: a live look at the newark state supreme court in lower manhattan where 12 jurors will soon return to deliberate the fate of former president donald trump. they, the jury, are currently on lunch break. trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and that is where we are at the top of the 1:00 hour on the east coast. john, and by the way, the jury can continue deliberating, we should point out. but it is officially a lunch break. hello, and welcome. i'm sandra smith. >> john: i'm john roberts in washington and this is "america reports." jury instructions wrapping up this morning pictures were sent out to deliberate. >> sandra: the judge instructed the jury to not let stereotypes effect the verdict and any proof of guilt must go beyond a reasonable doubt. >> john: and when it comes to michael cohen, the judge says they cannot convict donald trump based solely on the testimony. for expert analysis over the next two hours. >> sandra: first, let's get to our legal panel outside of the courthouse. let's bring in trey gowdy, shannon bream, and andy mccarthy. welcome to all three of you. andy, tell us what we should expect over the next couple of hours and what has struck you so far? >> andy: will, i think if we get a quick note, that would be interesting because it would at least give us an idea of what they are thinking as they go into this. but what struck me, what i can't shake the whole day especially when we got that a second ago, you said you stressed the reasonable doubt instruction that the judge had given. we learned today for sure that they don't have to agree on the other crime that truck was supposedly committing or concealing when he allegedly falsified his business records but it seems to me if they can't agree on that, that should be a reasonable doubt. yet the church is telling them they can convict and i keep thinking of the -- are great former two-time attorney general, bill barr, used to say that like presidents are not above the law but if you're going to prosecute a former president, it ought to be a clear crime as to what you have convincing evidence. what he called a mate and produce crime. it seems to be the opposite of the meet and potatoes crime. >> john: yeah, shine in and trey, my twitter has been on fire ever since i put out what you reported that four jurors could agree on one crime. four corners -- jurors could agree on a different crime other than that. as long as it adds up to 12, that is okay. so it is not unanimity on exactly what the crime is but you get 12 jurors saying he is guilty. andy said earlier today he does not know how to square that with the constitution. trey, if you want to go first and then shannon? >> trey: i don't want to go first because i don't know either. i think what makes it even more complicated is, i mean, i would have asked for a special verdict for him, at least tell us which crime you picked. the judge mentioned three crimes but as andy and shannon and i have been discussing, it could be a and to judge did not even mention. furthermore, when does something become a crime? to me, it is when a jury of 12 says you are guilty or when you admit it but crime has a specific meaning to me. does it have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? what are the elements of this unknown crime? it is to me void for vagueness. >> john: chanin. >> shannon: yeah, you think about this might be one of those things that shows up on their because we expect that the defendant is going to know what the crime is so that they can mount a defense to the crime. so if all of us have been analyzing the -- visiting for weeks until today, when the judge instructs the jury and says, here are three options that you could find and it doesn't have to be unanimous, this tax fraud thing we have not heard about, this is a state board and also potential falsification of other business records. this is some of your options. he also did not give them the jury instructions. there are 55 -- they are 55 pages long. we have them in the media. any of them does anybody in america can probably get their hands on them. as eddie said, when you get a note, at least that gives us an indication of what they might be struggling with, it might be talking about and the judge has said, i'm not going to give you the jury instructions. but if you need to hear another part, you come back and we will read them as many times as you want. so it will potentially give us clues as they are a little bit handicapped having, you know, heard this orally for an hour plus but having 55 pages not in front of them. >> sandra: all right, andy, back to you and the words from the former president himself as he was walking into the court this morning. mother teresa could not even beat these charges. >> president trump: mother teresa could not beat these charges. these charges are rigged. the whole thing is rigged. the whole country is a mess between the borders and take elections and you have a trial like this where the judge is so conflicted, he can't breathe. he has got to do his job and it is tough for me, that i can tell you. it is a disgrace. and i mean that. mother teresa could not beat those charges, but we will see. we will see how you do. >> sandra: all right, andy, well, that is how he feels. we will see. >> andy: i think my mom things mother teresa could beat the charges. but to my mind, it is not the charges that she would have a hard time with. it is the proceeding in which the judge is kind of colluding with the prosecutors and i don't say that lightly because it is a heavy-duty outlet to allegation to make about a judge but look. you know, everybody in america who knows anything about the criminal law including the judge himself knows that michael cohen's guilty pleas to campaign-finance crimes are not admissible against president trump. they are simply not. that is criminal law and judge marjon allowed the prosecutors to bring that to the jury's attention over and over and over again to point where i think the jury things they don't have to worry about that being proved because it is an established fact of the case. >> john: and i'm interested when the former president can out there, she always seemed to be resigned to the fact that he could be found guilty here. >> shannon: and today, when they were doing the jury instructions, he was -- was very relaxed. so the resigned as you said. his eyes were closed. he is sitting back. he would sit up and take a drink of water occasionally to a note with his attorneys. i get the sense, after the closing saturday, but the defense and the prosecution that the trauma team is starting to feel more and more like a conviction is in real danger for them. all they need is one jury to be a hold out for a potential mistrial and we have talked about it. the jury comes up with one or more holdouts that this judge is most certainly going to send them back with that charge you get the jury. we need to remember your duty and to go back to this and reconsider things. but think about now, too. this thing has gone on for weeks. they also are going to want to pull old testimony. stormy daniels, david pecker, all of those things. they may want to really get back and go to those things as they have got weeks worth of material that they have not been able to talk about as a jury until to today. >> sandra: you know, andy, we are reminded in this moment considering john's question just now about almost residing to the fact that he could be found guilty, let's look back to may 6th in court when the judge talked about the possibility of the former president being put in jail and his words then. marshaun saying the lastinger want to do is put you in jail. there a reason why incarceration is a last resort for me. the correction officers among others, i want you to understand that i will if necessary and appropriate. so that you consider his words than and you wonder how this is playing out in his mind now and the jury's, andy. >> andy: let's stick with appropriate because that brings us back to where we started our conversation. if the president trump, if there's any possibility that he could be sentenced to jail in this case, it is for one reason and one reason alone. bragg the district attorney, took a misdemeanor for where there is a two-year statute of limitations and he inflated it into a felony with an allegation that trump was committing or concealing another crime and now what they are telling trump is the jury does not have to agree on what the other crime is. and that is the only reason we are hearing. that is the only reason he is looking at a jail sentence. >> john: très, it to that point, violations of the gag order. but if the jury were to return a guilty verdict, judge marshawn is the one who will hand down sentencing. what do you think he would do? >> trey: well, at the time judge marshawn said he didn't want to put him in jail. he was presumed innocent. if a jury finds him guilty, that cloak is gone. that presumption of innocence is gone. to i think this is an in custodial present case, it's no. he has no criminal history. he is not a career offender. it is not a crime of violence and for pete's sakes, this is new york where you have to do a lot to actually get an in custodial sentence. however, this judge does not like donald trump. so would it be an in custodial sentence? probably not. but i would not say it is an impossibility. >> sandra: andy, shannon, trey, you are outside of the court. the jury is being given a lunch break. they have a choice to continue deliberating which meant some may have chosen to do. it is fair to say that they are still deliberating right now and we are going stand you by and hopefully get back to you shortly. thank you so much. john. >> john: we will see them sign. let's bring in will sharp, the attorney representing present up. he is also running for attorney general in missouri. so just off the back of what trey gowdy was saying there, if and this is an if at this point but the former president seemed to tilt his head to the -- the idea that a jury might convict him here. if a judge has to pronounce sentence, what he sent the former president to jail knowing not only how precedent-setting that would be and how as trey was saying it would be not in keeping with the fact that it is the first time offense for him and the logistics of putting the former president in jail. what he do that? or would he enact some other sanction. >> will: this is a deeply rigged trial that is being presided over by a deeply and irretrievably biased judge. that having been said, looking at the entire trial record here, having been in that courtroom, the evidence does not nearly amount to be on a reachable doubt of any of the charges in the indictment. the trip, i believe, did nothing wrong. i think the evidence shows that. and i hope the jury will do the right thing here. we can talk all day about potential sentences. but we are not passed the first hurdle of conviction yet. and i think any perjury in america with see this trial for what it is, which is a political show trial in the finest stalinist sense of of the word. it is absolutely outrageous that person term has been put off the campaign trail to sit through a week after week after week of court and even after all of that, they still have not shown that he committed any actual crime here, that he did anything wrong whatsoever. so i don't think we are at the stage yet where we would even begin to think about sentencing because i think the prosecution has abjectly failed to meet in this case and i hope to receive that. >> sandra: some of what we heard from the prosecution just yesterday and closing arguments, this was the case that they made. they believe they have convinced the jury. this is in his opening, mr. crandall told you that this case at its core is about to compete -- a conspiracy and about a cover up. if you hadn't done that when you discussed this case with your fellow jurors, the prosecution detailed, you will see that the people have presented powerful evidence of the defendants -- defender's gilkes. do you believe anybody watching this play out who is getting the results from the courtroom believes that this jury was sold and shown hard evidence of the crime. >> will: the noise and the cycle is coming entirely from the prosecution here. that is the crazy thing about this case. this is a relatively mundane business records case work -- work with the prosecution has abjectly failed to prove that person term had anything to do with the recordings made, with the business entries in question. that alone is reason for a speedy acquittal on the part of the jury here and i believe that any surgery will see through at least that aspect of the case and certainly the fact that the prosecution is relying on michael cohen, a serial perjurer and liar who is thoroughly discredited on the stand for a crucial parts of the case. i think this case has more holes than swiss cheese and i'm hopeful that the jury fees at the same way. >> sandra: you said speedy acquittal. if we are told that a verdict is in, do you believe that it is for the benefit of the former president? >> will: i think it honestly could go either way. we will have to see how it plays out. >> sandra: interesting. thank you so much. >> john: thanks, will. appreciate your time. great to be with you. >> sandra: former president donald trump off is try out turn to the and then katherine strain -- issuing instructions. this is all happening right now. jonathan turley, kerri urbahn, also at the courthouse as the jury is deliberating. they will join us on verdict watch to discuss what happens if the former president is convicted. that is next. >> it is a sham and a disgrace. >> i think it is a total farce. if it is not thrown out, i would be shocked. >> they don't want him to be president again. >> there is no evidence. is completely politically motivated. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪) dad: what are you looking for? [both laughing] >> sandra: fox news alert. 20 minutes past the top of the hour. the fate of former president donald trump is now in the hands of 12 jurors deliberating in the new york criminal trial. let's bring in jonathan turley, fox news contributor. kerri urbahn is the legal editor and fbn's, d who has been covering this case from the very beginning. jonathan, to you first. we can only imagine what is happening behind closed doors that is a lunch break. but they are deliberating. they can continue deliberating through lunch. but talk to is a little bit what we know about these jurors, what we have seen from them in court, any sort of color or guidance you can give as to what is happening right now. >> jonathan: well, that is always a mystery. and even the most transparent cases. that is -- this is less so. the jurors have by all reports been fairly stoic. not showing a lot of emotion throughout the trial. i think they are taking this very seriously. when they go into that room, they have some housekeeping to do. arranging how they are going to address these. it is left open to them and how they want to approach these as the judge said, these 34 counts are largely repetitious. so there's a lot of different ways that can -- that they can try to deal with this. but remember there are 34 of them and they are living at 4:30 today. so i wouldn't be surprised if you had a verdict today. >> john: so carry the jury is not going to be secure -- sequestered. they will be able to go home after the deliberations are over for the day. in this very first trial ever, of a former u.s. president with so much at stake, should they be sequestered? >> kerri: you know, you would think so. but on the other hand, though, this really is about despite what the prosecution is trying to make it about, falsifying business records. it really should be much more straightforward. i think in the prosecution has made it to be. of course, they are doing that because they are determined to imprison donald trump and make him not a choice for the american people, i think, in november. now, again, the case really bows down to two, i think it's a very simple issues that the jury has to overcome as a threshold matter. one is whether one can classify to a personal attorney as legal expenses for the work trial and the recurring you, which is what he seemed to be doing. he testified it was only for work done in the prior year. but we now know thanks to his testimony that he continues to do legal work during that time and secondly, if the jury has an issue with characterizing to a lawyer as legal expenses, there really has not been evidence that establish that donald trump himself knew or directed the payments to be classified in that way. in fact, we heard testimony to the opposite from the accounts payable person and her supervisor that they had no interaction with trump over those payments. the only person they interacted with was allen weisselberg, as we know has been missing in action throughout this trial because the prosecution won't call him. >> sandra: i think about those final moments of the defense's closing arguments, jonathan, you wonder if it was effective with those jurors. this was blanche on michael cohen being the goat. michael cohen is the ." he is literally the greatest liar of all time. you cannot convict somebody based on the words of michael corn. if you focus on the evidence you heard in this courtroom, this is a very, very, very quick and easy not guilty verdict. of course, michael cohen was the prosecution's a start witness, andy. >> jonathan: and the judge just instructed the jury that when they believe a witness has light in any material fact, they can disregard the entirety of his testimony. many of us to believe that cohen lied on the stand and there -- there are a couple of occasions where we pointed that out. but the -- the biggest problem i think for the former president remains the instructions and the work of this judge. i was astonished yesterday but what the judge allowed the prosecutors to get away with. i thought much of the argument of the prosecutors was effective but it was also improper. you know, at some points, the prosecutor was giving testimony, stuff that was not in evidence but he was saying that the reason that hope hicks cried was because she had put the final name nail on the coffin of her boss. all of that stuff was coming directly out of the prosecutor knocked the record. but the biggest problem is the judge allowed the prosecutor to say it is a fact that not only is there election violations here, but that they were ordered by trump. now, magnifying that problem are these instructions. and these instructions are deadly for the president in a number of respects. the most worrisome is that the judge said they don't have to agree on what happened. so that judge has said that there's this other crime out there and the prosecutors have suggested three different crimes. and he told the jury, you don't have to agree on what actually occurred. so you can have a jury that is split four, four, and four on what actually occurred, what that other crime was. and the judge would treat it like unanimous verdict. >> john: right. and to that point, one of the particular crimes that the jurors, decide on is a tax crime and lydia, you have some thoughts on that. what you think? >> lydia: yeah, john, it seemed like the tax crime is kind of like the sleeper charge that was injected into all of this. even though let'