>> right now is that juries in new york versus chuck are back in deliberation, right after they were read by key witness testimony from david tucker and michael cohen. we might be good to read a little bit into that, we will get to that in a moment, but the judge also read key parts of the jury instructions. inside the courtroom does juries appeared intensely focused sometimes nodding their head sometimes taking down notes to help them guide themselves through this historic decision. a verdict could come at any moment and we will bring you live updates from inside and outside the courtroom all have a lock. hello, everyone this is "outnumbered." i am kayleigh mceany heal the harris faulkner and emily compagno. joining us today fox news contributor, marie harf, and fox news contributor and former nypd expec, paul mauro. first let's bring in former assistant u.s. attorney and fox news contributor andy mccarthy w who is life out that the court house he has been there all day. andy, walk us through some of the jury notes and what we might be able to glean from them. i realize that there might be some hesitancy in reading series but nonetheless the first note that came out, when you look through what exactly was asked for, two of the piece of evidence were from its 2015 donald trump tower meeting and it was also in 2016 phone call with david tucker and donald trump that took place, and one regarding the get general counsel and advice that was set by david packer, the reason i bring all four of these pieces of evidence forward is that if they are all key to the prosecution's argument, in fact the 2016 phone call is on page three, anything to be read into this? >> well, you would have to think that they are examining the government's claim that this whole thing is not 34 counts of falsification and business records, but instead a scheme to steal the 2016 election by suppressing politically damaging information. i happen to think that is not a crime. on the way that they are trying to sort of injected criminality into it is that there very own interpretation of the federal election law, which is not the interpretation followed by the justice department and the federal election commission, the two bodies that congress actually gave exclusive jurisdiction to to enforce these laws, but a lot of this, kayleigh mceany, they are making up as they go along exercise so what we are seeing is that the jury is having a look at what they had made up. >> kayleigh: note number three asked for a very specific portion of the jury charges and i was the inference instruction and what they can infer from the testimony they have hurt. it wasn't for instance the false testimony jury instruction it wasn't just this witness have a bias, so hearing number three and number one those notes, they seem to be making inference here are seeing if they can make such a inference anything to be read into that? >> yes i think there is. let's look at it from two different ways. looking at it from the prosecutor side, what they want to do is they had this meeting, the testimony about the meeting between david packer and michael cohen, and the idea is can they infer from with the testimony says is this general agreement to bury information, can they jar and inference that when michael cohen and david packer took action it was action taken with trump's approval, which is what the prosecution's theory of the cases. now from the other side from the defense side and i really do hope that they look into this carefully because to me this is like the slam-dunk part of the case that i am worried that the jury has missed. you cannot infer from michael cohen's guilty plea or the fact that david packer entered into a nonprosecution agreement that trump is guilty of a federal election campaign crime. so, the question i would hope the jury would ask upon that realization in the instruction that was repeated to them is okay well if we can't infer the intent or his commission of the crime what is the evidence that donald trump committed a federal election crime? what they will find is that until 2018, long after the charges in the case, there was no federal election commission or consideration in this case. it never entered into anyone's mind until after "the washington post" or even "the wall street journal" leaked the existence of one of the nondisclosure agreement and then the federal election commission started to ask questions. prior to that there is no evidence in the case that anyone was even thinking about fico. >> kayleigh: fascinating analysis is always andy, thank you. paul, i asked about the first and the third jury note because we are trying to read any signs here, i also want to pair that with the what here as important as the white, what is the what evidence but why are they asking for this evidence are they trying to collaborate a conclusion they have come to or are they trying to convince maybe a juror who is dissenting? >> paul: one thing i have learned is trying to read the tea leaves of a jury when they send out the notes is a very unrewarding experience. to hold the fire of that, i'm going to smarten up the judge's instruction and the front of this case for my my own sake, trump caused 34 fraudulent writings with the intent to unlawfully influence an election. that is the whole thing. so what does that mean? you have to get to number one -- he caused 34 for while jewish writings to occur. he had to have the intent for those 34 to be fraudulent he didn't write them down himself he calls them. if you don't get passed when you don't get to two. what you base number one on if you have a prosecution. michael cohen? i say we should do but i'm going to do it. i believe that the jury is trying to figure out a way to take as gospel here, to take seriously michael collins testimony because michael cohen is the only person who can speae intent, we don't have eliza buerk here who is the accountant who did a lot of these entries. so michael cohen is the whole thing regarding the intent for the crimes of life the fraudulent 34 -- the jury is looking at this and going in order and be meticulous in their same we can all go home otherwise, and the jury said we can't discount a liar if we saw lies in court but, we could also rehabilitate him for lack of a better term by using other evidence. but with deeds the testimony and other stuff that michael might cooperate so they can say he's a liar he is a lighting corp. at that party was aligned by we have is of a piece i would move onto the second piece. i think they looking very hard at number piece and number one. >> kayleigh: they also seem to be following stein class, at the closing argument and has caused a lot of -- he went down the line and encourage the jury to do the same and he seems to be tracking that some may be on their own they are starting chronologically may be the truck in the prosecution maybe somebody is questioning the prosecution and saying no here's my theory is a case. >> emily: it could be so many things and i appreciate the distinction in your introduction paul about the if so then, but you can't get to a subsequent step without ticking a box of the first one, so let's say let's take for arguments sake they are sort of exploring the crowd of contentment, remembering that packer conversation or the allegations of such that it also went to the fact that yes we went to kill negative stories all the time. so you hope that going back to that you are not trying to put a square peg in a round hole but rather to re-examine everything and let the conclusions fall where they make rather than trying to support for a predetermined conclusion. >> kayleigh: harris i would also note that i listen to the jury on this case, and she said look it took us a long time to come to this conclusion, ten days even though we were all in agreement. interestingly they were asked about polls, because we don't know if they'd taken a straw poll they often say that they seek take straw polls so did they say who agrees and who disagrees and there they go from there or they try to use evidence and try to come to conclusion? >> harris: it's a great question because of what we have right now and that is on one charge several charges you can have four people agree around and that you can have the state charges of election interference you can have four people agree and on the federal charges of election interference you can have four people to greet. i just learned from phil holloway last hour at the former federal prosecutor it could go six and six how do you kill a hung jury at this point? if it is four and four and four, is it one from each of those? then you need to be people if it's six and six is it one from each of those groups that you need to people, the nobal days you have 12 jurors and one of them says no it doesn't fly with me it's a hung jury. it is fascinating to me, that really does matter in this case so it is hard for me to even approach where are they if you take a strong poll, they going to have to take several of them to get that breakup. >> marie: is interesting here is to that point because i think that the jury if i were to guess i think they will either decide he is definitely done all of it or done none of it. i think it is splitting hairs in these very legalistic way about the different charges in the different counts and all of that i feel like they going to say yes or no. and emily to your point this is been a question in my mind all morning, as i've been thinking about this. the question of whether donald trump would've wanted the story aired if he was not running for president. this is the question. they said that we did this all the time, david parker also said it was a consideration that he was running for president there was a campaign ongoing, so that in the jury's mind has to be one of these questions they are asking themselves because if the client is to influence an election, he would've probably done even if he wasn't running for president when he had been at that time or in that way when you try to hide it? that is a different question. but that keeps coming up in my mind as we think about how the jury might be looking at this. >> harris: the way i have read the testimony was michael cohen who said that if they had not been an election, they would have not gone for it, which does change it because now it's back on the fact of the shoulders of the convicted -- he did bring that information in the sense that they did this all the time and they wanted to raise this one because it was on the horizon and the horizon was porn star, but i believe that last part was cautious before they had said that they had done so much for the texas family and they did not want the newspapers delivered or they did not want the wife to also testify to the concern for his family. new new york v. trump, vertical watch continues, where we come back we would discuss what is next for the trump legal team iy convicts the former president. s food to the farmer's dog, the effects can seem like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's just smarter, healthier pet food. it's amazing what real food can do. (restaurant noise) [announcer] introducing allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. allison! over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. cordless outdoor power, brings you the ego power+ string trimmer with powerload technology. feed the line, push the button and get back to work. ego, exclusively at lowe's, ace and ego authorized dealers. >> emily: we are awaiting a verdict and new york v. trump decker find a presumptive g.o.p. presidential nominee guilty. donald trump will likely appeal any conviction and that could be a lengthy process, because of the five judge jeanine pirro joins us live outside the courthouse, on this historic trial, the money to judge, tell us if the former president is found guilty, they will be an inevitable appeal process what would that look like and on what grounds do you see the former president appealing? >> you know emily, they are so many grounds that the president could appeal this on in the event that he is to be -- or if he were to be convicted, not the least to be a violation of the fifth amendment -- the defendant was not given adequate notice of what the charges are or even in terms of the evidence, number two, it's the fact that this case is -- people call it a case of first impression i call it a magic show. this is a case where the prosecutors, they apparently met for a week and a something and try to figure out a way that they could indict donald trump donald trump onto inspired misdemeanors with the family unbeknownst to any of us until pretty much the summation as the charge to the jury of a call and a, b, or c crime over which the state prosecutor like myself, has no jurisdiction, so you can include that certainly is going to raise those dead misdemeanors and ride to direct them if they're a violation of the federal election commission act, or if there violation of federal tax law, neither of which they have any jurisdiction in the fact that you have to have a unanimous verdict, unanimous jury on any of the terms that's a violation of the sixth amendment and the seventh amendment. and the fact that in this particular case, the judge has allowed in michael cohen and david parker to be able to talk about the fact that they have been implicated not michael cohen specifically pleaded guilty to a camping violation and also david tucker working out a deal with the prosecutor and then magic with the jury you know what michael: was aiding and abetting for a federal election commission violations. and the first missing witness charge should have been granted against alan weiss of burke who was in the control of the prosecution who had relevant material evidence. and lastly there is no proof of guilt here. no one is testified that donald trump had anything to do with the invoice the vouchers or the checks all we know is that he signed checks when he was talking on the phone and all of this happened after the election. we just heard or read back where donald trump has said, i don't pay money for stories or for stories, i don't pay money for stories. so what we're doing here is that they are trying to crucify a candidate for presidency, based upon make-believe tribes over which they have no jurisdiction other than that it's a good c case. >> emily: so judge, in the off chance that the president indeed is convicted and they do go through with this, during that phase with a sentence be stated so the former president can continue campaigning? would he be allowed to pursue his candid and seek or be hamstrung during this process? >> it's interesting, and a case like this assuming they were to be a conviction it's a car thief and felony, the matthew faces four years, but te truth is without a prior recordy should be -- incarceration should not be considered however you can get bail pending appeal from the trial judge of the proud judge denies it you can request a pellet bail i assume the obese some motions here if there is a conviction and they go to the appellate division in new york and that can take months and months before it is actually perfected and before there is a decision that has brought them. there are other sections of course as you well know we've got probation a conditional discharge is and we've got a complete release based upon what has happened so far saying you are free to go but there's so many options here i am concerned about the judge he hasn't been found his case and this is in a political statement it is a legal one this judge is not fair to this defendant and it is a constitutional issue right now that i think that these lawyers could certainly take up. >> emily: thank you so much okay let's finger back to the couch paul, what do you say on e option of what that like? >> paul: to the comments right there to the appellate division she is really summed it up well a few things, first of all the issue letting in extraneous stuff to dirty up the defendant that sort of a dumbed down version of what that is but why does that monarch in new york new york state court we recently had a reversal on that in the weinstein case so that's right. number two, in terms of conditions, you can put -- you could put them under probation and post travel so that is something that could be on the table every time they say what they will never do such a thing they do such a thing why do you get the feeling that this judge might proscribe donald trump's travel to the south bronx, and then lastly there is a problem here which if they get to it will be ten years from now with the statute itself is unconstitutional. at some point the statute that they used the intent to commit a second crime, that thing is going to go. na this case can highlight what? >> to the weinstein analogy here, that took a couple of years. everything takes forever here and at the end of the day we talk about reversible error but we also talk about the prejudice and the fact that this is irreparable prejudice and its irreparable prejudice and injury to this candidate for president. >> kayleigh: bingo because that appeal would take place after the election. but, the biden campaign would have the benefit of saying convicted felon. how fair is that? not only that they keep the guy off the campaign trail potentially. i just have to put in! oh what you said the judge prescribing's -- this candidate has a lot of energy behind him gaining with black and latino voters prescribing travel from the south bronx very clever. >> it is interesting that the judge has so much leeway in this case the judge that donald trump has repeatedly attacked online. donald trump has repeatedly gone after this judge and he has a lot of power particularly in sentencing here and that's the way the system works if it goes after the election that's what happens. >> harris: i know some of the focus for the segment has been on what happens if he's convicted and all the different choices but what if he is not? politically speaking that makes and teflon. because he's going to have new reasons to say that the justice system is two-tiered and stacked against them in this country and he can lay out his and also what he's been through with a critically looked upon by his judges, you heard judge jeanine saying that as well. so it is interesting, i don't want to call it a win, because this has been captive for him. but he is fighting a case against him. and victory for him might look like well, i am innocent and i need to get on the campaign trail like never before. >> emily: up next for the chokecherry eventual verdict in the 2024 presidential race? what to come. ego, the number one rated brand in cordless outdoor power brings you the select cut mower. customize the cut with three interchangeable blades. it cuts for over an hour on a single charge. ego - exclusively at lowe's, ace and ego authorized dealers. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you