are in charge of history, a decision you will make will be taught in schools, written down in history books, and then that decision awaits you today. imagine how heavy it would feel to get out of bed this morning. it's a lot. and yet that is what 12 men and women are doing right now, deciding if they believe the former president of the united states, donald trump, committed a crime, potentially multiple felonies for as the manhattan district attorney's office argues corruptly trying to interfere with an election. engaging in a so-called scheme that prosecutors say could have been what got him elected. the prosecution has told the jury they think this is a simple case, that in the weeks before the 2016 election during the fallout from the access hollywood tape, donald trump caused michael cohen to buy and bury the story of an affair with an adult film star, to hide it from you, the voters. they call that election interference, and say this case has so much evidence, it is overwhelmingly clear donald trump is guilty. they even argue they have two smoking guns. we'll show them to you in a moment. the defense, meanwhile, argues it is just the opposite, that the prosecution has no direct evidence donald trump knew anything about the payment to stormy daniels, that if there was a scheme, it was michael cohen and michael cohen's alone. you deserve more, the defense argues. you can't send the former president to prison based on the words of a liar like michael cohen, and while that plea from the defense drew an angry rebuke and a curative instruction to the jury from the judge, you have to wonder if the spirit of that comment lingered with the jury. that it is their decision to make donald trump the first president to ever be charged with a crime. and maybe found guilty. their decision that could change the course of history. so how are they dealing with that right now, three and a half hours or so into their deliberation. what questions are going to come up? in fact, they just rang the bell. they might have a question right now. we're going to get into this because something could be happening. joining us now from outside of the new york city courthouse, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard. former assistant district attorney in manhattan and msnbc legal analyst, catherine christian, and former fbi general counsel and former member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election, andrew weissmann. look at that. saved by the bell, if you will, vaughn hillyard. what do we know? >> reporter: to be clear, there is no distinction between a bell that goes into the courtroom for a verdict versus the bell that goes into the courtroom being rung over a note coming from the jury who is currently deliberating. so we do not know at this point in time. hopefully within a matter of minutes it is made clear. now, of course we should expect notes to be sent from the jury. this would be in very short order. only three and a half hours of deliberation so far. now, earlier today when they entered into the deliberation room, they were given a laptop that has the entirety of the evidence, every single exhibit, text message, phone call that was entered into the record. the entire testimony provided by those 22 witnesses. they've got it on their laptop, they can send a note for clarity to the evidence. they can send a note to the judge to have judge merchan re-read parts of the jury instruction that he delivered over the course of the first hour this morning, particularly as it pertains to what laws they are determining whether donald trump is guilty over. because the jury instructions, again, took over an hour to read this morning, they do not have a physical copy of that in that room themselves here. they worked over the course of the lunch period. and we should also note that donald trump is currently inside of the courthouse. he is currently in another side room where he has been posting on social media, a campaign has sent out a fundraising e-mail on his behalf that said in part, i could be in jail tomorrow. they're in an all out political war against us. the stakes are incredibly high, and every time we should expect a ring in the courtroom could be a potential verdict from the jury. >> katherine and andrew, we don't know if it's a verdict, if it's a question. given that the jury instructions were a little bit over an hour, hundreds of pages of jury instructions, is it safe to guess that it's probably a question this quickly into the deliberations. it's just three and a half hours. >> it could be a question, and the way the judge handles it, it's very cumbersome, he has to make the note, a court exhibit, has to have both parties there, including the defendant, read it into the record, have the jurors come in, read it in again into the record, and make sure that it's read accurately, and then find out. so it could be a question. or it could be a verdict. >> so the types of questions that you can anticipate. obviously it could be a verdict, but the types of questions could be a question of law that they want to have greater explanation in which case, as catherine said, one thing that the judge will do after reading it into the record and ask the parties to address it so that he can hear what they think the answer should be. the other thing it could be, in addition to and understand the law is they want to have a read back, that is they want to hear read back certain testimony, so, for instance, can you please read back the testimony from david pecker on x topic, at which point the parties meet, they try and come up with a consensus as to what that readback would be. if there's a disagreement, the judge decides it. then the jury comes out and they read it back to the jury. >> the d.a.'s team has just walked in. we got this note about a bell ringing. again, could be verdict, could be a question. just a couple of minutes ago. how quickly do you think this process is going to start going? >> it also depends. if they want read back, they have to get the court reporter in there. >> how quickly will we know if it's a question or verdict. >> as soon as all the parties are there. we have a note, before i do anything, make it a court exhibit, and then he will read it. >> all right. so we're going to find out any second now. i'm so fascinated by what it must be like. this is what i woke up thinking this morning. it's a big day in the news business, a big day for the this country. what a giant day it is for these 12 jurors. >> so, you know, yesterday before deliberations, people were saying, oh, what is the jury thinking, what do you think they're thinking? having been on a jury, they don't know what they're thinking because they have not talked about the case until they go in the room, finally, to be told they can deliberate, which only happened today after they were instructed on the law. so that's when they first found out what everyone was thinking. >> so you don't think they actually had an idea of where they were leaning on this case? >> only individually. they would have no idea. there was no sense of where do you think the jury is, if you asked each of the 12 jurors, they would be like i know what i might be thinking, but they would have no sense of where the jury is at this point. >> they got the case 3 1/2 hours ago, they go behind closed doors, start talking to one another, get of sense of where they are. they spent five weeks together. they probably know a little bit about each one of their personal lives. they weren't allowed to talk about the case. what happens first? >> you know, will the jury foreperson decide he or she is going to be the leader, and in new york, the person is jury number one. it's not an election. >> do they take a straw poll? >> it depends. i've always been dinged. no one wanted to put me on a jury. it depends on the 12 people. >> typically it is a straw poll. they just get a sense. it would be common to have questions about the law, and instructions. so that's a pretty typical kind of question you get, and then the other would be, as i said, would be some sort of read back. remember, it's a long trial, so when they're being told think back to what david pecker said or hope hicks said, you can imagine someone saying, i know it's in my notice, let's get a read back. >> we have great news. joining us now is msnbc chief legal correspondent and anchor "the beat," ari melber, the prosecution wants to argue it's a simple case. donald trump was trying to cause michael cohen to hide a payment to an adult film star to affect the election, to hide things from the voters, at the same time, their summation, and i saw the beginning and the end of it was five hours long. it was very complicated and mostly easy to follow. there were times it got kind of weedy. how difficult is a case like this for a jury, and is it made easier or harder having two lawyers on the jury? >> it's interesting. we have talked about this. lawyers on the jury does change the tenor because it's human nature for people to kind of go, oh, well, what do you guys think, but if they're responsible and follow the rules, they're supposed to, of course, only find facts and deal with the evidence. not give some sort of, like, random legal advice to the jury, you know what i mean. >> but does the jury look to them and say, you understand how to read the law, you're more schooled in this than i am, can you take a leadership role to try and help us understand what's going on. >> that could happen. what's so fascinating, 3 1/2 hours into the deliberations, we find out something. we don't know what we're about to find out. >> we don't know if it's a note. it could be a ringing of the bell. it could be a question. it could be a verdict. >> or more. we're waiting on that. here we are 3 1/2 hours in. they have had time to digest what you described, katy, lengthy arguments yesterday, as well as the jury instructions this morning, and so we were all following and reading those instructions and trying to figure out, okay, where did it all land. they looked fairly straightforward to me, and the instructions are, of course, designed to give everyone guidance on how to have these conversations that they have now been having for about and a half hours. >> merchan has taken the bench. we have color on what the ring sounds like, a very old fashioned telephone. donald trump is standing there, holding papers. we're going to find out more in a moment. it's a note from the jury, according to judge merchan. so they have a note from the jury, and they are going to potentially if it's a question, have judge merchan re-read back the jury instructions. >> just to be clear, if it's a note for amplification on the law or a note for witness testimony, either way, it's going to take some time. because if it is a question of law, he does need to hear from the parties about what they think should be said, and if it's -- the thing that takes even more time is if it's a read back, figuring out exactly what needs to be read back is something where the parties need to do to figure out exactly what that is. that takes time to answer the question. >> the note was sent at 2:56 p.m., just before we came on the air. there are four requests from the jury, catherine. four requests. >> it could be requests for read back, requests to, you know, tell us again what you meant by intentionally. it could be an assortment of things. four requests, you know -- >> hold on, before you have to guess, i can fill us in. it reads, we the jury request david pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with donald trump while pecker was in the investor meeting. they also want pecker and cohen's testimony about the trump tower meeting and pecker's testimony about his not finalizing the transfer of mcdougal's life rights to donald trump. >> yeah, this is interesting, and let's get into it. we now have the first clues about what they're discussing, and we want to be as careful as possible. the fact that they're asking about something may or may not be what it looks like at first impression. for example, katy, a meeting that the prosecution brought up because they say it's bad for trump. the fact that the jury is discussing it doesn't mean they agree with the prosecution that it's bad for trump, but these are definitely key questions about reviewing evidence, testimonial or otherwise, regarding the tabloid plot. so we have mr. pecker who of course was the first star witness, ran the inquirer, the ami chief, our prosecutors can speak to this as well because that's where they argue the catch and kill plot was developed, so the d.a.'s team has argued that that trump tower meeting was key, and michael cohen's testimony about that meeting is, again, two different ways to look at what was alleged to be the beginning of that plot. >> one thing i just wanted to say. i mean, i totally agree with what ari is saying is that i caution people to not tea leaf, read too much. i have seen notes which you think are really good for one set or the other. and it's the opposite. the one thing i do think is good for potentially for the state here is asking to have michael cohen's testimony read back. david pecker is not surprising because there was not a lot of attack by the defense on david pecker, so you can understand why that as the first witness is something they need to have their memories sort of refreshed about exactly what he said. but the fact that they are asking for michael cohen after the onslaught he took is interesting because that means that there isn't sort of unanimity. we are not going to focus on what he said. we do not believe him. it is not useful. it is to me that has to be viewed as at least potentially a good sign. yes, he may need corroboration. >> they're also asking for pecker. doesn't that indicate they want to see how the two stories align? >> absolutely. and it really makes sense. i mean, nobody is thinking, there's no way that a jury is going to say, oh, just because michael cohen said it, we're going to take it to the bank and without any corroboration. so this makes total sense. and david pecker i really do think because he was not really attacked by the defense, it makes sense that they would be, you know what, that's the first witness. let's hear what he had to say again. >> they have the laptop, they have all of the evidence, but they don't have testimony. why don't they have testimony? >> that has to be read back. that is the court reporter coming into the courtroom and literally reading it back. as ari said, it's important for the prosecution they're going back to that trump tower meeting where the conspiracy, the alleged conspiracy was hatched, where the catch and kill was hatched. that means they're focusing. they have just started right out. and also, what did michael cohen say about that meeting. they have asked for his testimony. >> essentially they're starting at the beginning as well. they're not going to the end of it. when was this initial meeting had, what was said at the initial meeting. >> i would put it like this. this is what's interesting, we're all processing it live. i'm not going to say this is great for the prosecution yet. but i will definitely say it's not bad. by which i mean they're looking at the theory of the case. you know what would be bad, if they were asking about comparing michael cohen's description of this now much discussed call to the body guard to something else. if they were asking about places where the trump folks attacked. these are these are questions that at least show the jury has begun and this has come out of the first three and a half hours of discussion and deliberation, they have begun by saying, what happened at trump tower, what was the tabloid plot and was it part of an election crime potentially? >> can i just tell the viewers what's going to happen now? because there will be delay, and what happens is the prosecution and the defense now are taking this note and figuring out respectively what pages and by page and line responds to this. so they are going through everything david pecker said to figure out what it is, then they confer with each other. there will always be a disagreement about exactly what it is, and then those disagreements are brought up to the judge who decides what exactly is responsive and then there is the read back. so there will be some time delay now. >> and can i ask a question, we're going to be doing this for a while. but a question for catherine is specifically, in these kinds of courtrooms that you have been in in new york court, how long would you expect this read back to be based on what andrew said? >> the judge said we're going to end today at 4:30. i'm wondering if he'll tell the jury, you know what, if we do this today, it night take us past 4:30, and therefore we'll do it tomorrow. he has promised them 4:30. they may have plans. >> he said 4:30, we can reassess and see where you are. >> exactly. as andrew said, there's usually not an agreement between both sides. no, they don't want that part of the testimony, they want this. >> i think it's interesting, when we're talking about the trump tower meeting and the deal with david pecker and michael cohen and donald trump, the defense team tried to paint this as standard operating procedure for any candidate or campaign in dealing with a journalist, and saying that what ami was doing, catching and killing stories was what all of us as journalists do when we are dealing with a campaign. it's normal for a candidate to spin. a campaign is a conspiracy between a candidate and another person to get them elected. they tried to trot out rahm emanuel and others to say this was fine. do you think that question is potentially going to come up with these jurors? i mean, we know that that is not standard operating procedure. we know that that is way beyond the bound of journalism. it's not what a traditional or a news outlet or journalist does, but the jurors might not know that. >> so the defense is going to very much look at the precise wording of the note, and they will be arguing for as much of the defense case coming in as responsive, and the judge has to make that decision. in this case, you can imagine the state will say, no, that is not about what happened at the meeting. that is about how they should be thinking about the meeting, and so there will be -- that is exactly why there will be some delays here. one thing to katherine's point about sort of how the judge could proceed is because this -- the judge could say if i want to get you out of here at a certain hour, i'll take the first one, and we'll get you a response to that and so that it sort of doesn't all happen at once. >> i would add to that. as we were discussing and katy pointed out, the comparison here. the jury is interested in getting more information about the infamous trump tower meeting, asking for david pecker's description of it and michael cohen's, and one can reasonably infer they may compare that. the jury instructions urge them to do that, look at testimony, not notes, to use their common sense and recollection. the other piece we have talked a little less about what is request number two, asking for david pecker's testimony about the life rights for karen mcdougal, former playboy model linked to donald trump who did not testify in this trial but who again was one of these people as katy mentioned, the traditional media operations where you try to find out information and publish it, online or on the tv or broadcast or some other format, a newspaper, tabloid. the idea is you're in the business of publishing, and here with both mcdougal, and the trump tower meeting, which involves this, a very different approach where, again, according to pecker and other testimony, they were buying things as a cutout, as a kind of a secret off the books ope