hi, everyone. here we go. it is 4:00 in new york. oh, to be a fly on the wall behind these closed doors. in the courthouse that has seen no shortage of famous influential or wealthy criminal defendants. 12 new yorkers and seven men and five women are right now debating the fate of a former president of the united states and they have questions. the jury in the historic trump criminal election interference hush money trial is at this moment deliberating on the 34 felony counts trump is charged with by the manhattan district attorney. just in, in the last few minutes, a second note has been sent from the jury, they're asking to re-hear judge merchan's instructions to them and earlier they are requested testimony from david pecker and michael cohen. our journalists are standing watch and they are updating us and we'll update you as soon as we know anything. as of 4:00 p.m., the juries that deliberated for four hours after yesterday's marathon day of closing arguments, more than 7 hours between the closing argument delivered by the defense and the prosecution. this morning the judge delivered toz complicated but all important jury instructions. when judge mer shan explained how the juries have to apply the laws to this case. something that matters in this case, but in this one where donald trump faces felony charges, nots not misdemeanor, because it was to conceal another crime. the jury instructions took on a new importance. they did not have agree amongst themselves what the underlying crime was. "new york times" reports that the jury did not have to agree unanimously that they might determine that trump use the in the election conspiracy. had the judge required them to be unanimous on the unlawful means it might have become far hard tore reach a verdict. the judge went through each and every one of the single felony counts, each one pointing to 11 checks and 11 invoices and 12 vouchers. the judge explained what needed to be proven to show that trump falsified these records or caused the records to be falsified. now as for defendant, donald trump, he's forced to wait just like every other criminal defendant in the country. any moment now he could find out whether he'll be asking the american people to send him to the white house with a criminal conviction on his record. he has been spending his time posting a lot of nutty things on the platform truth social. earlier he said, does not know what he's been charged with. ine though they were read to him while he was there. just before that, he posted a rant from outside of the courthouse where he claimed mother teresa could not beat these charges. if mother teresa would be charged with concealing hush money payments to hide an affair with a porn star. we're sorry we said her name in that sentence. wait-and-see mode in the interference hush money criminal trial is where we begin with our most favorite reporters and friends. with us at the table, andrew wiseman is back and susan craig, and also back former deputy assistant attorney harry litman is here and outside of the courthouse, vaughn hillyard. vaughn, what is happening right now? i want to look down to see what is happening in the courtroom but i won't do that. i'll let you tell us. >> reporter: well first of all, i'm wondering how rings of the bell we're going to get. because it is not clear when the jury, from the jury room, rings the bell into the courtroom whether they have a verdict or have a note with questions. and now so far they have rung in twice with two different notes. the jury just in the last two minutes re-entered the courtroom and there were two requests from the jury to judge merchan. number one, there were four specific parts of testimony including from michael cohen and david pecker that they want to have reread to them. judge merchan informing them it is 30 pages of testimony required to be read back to them. that could last up to 30 minutes. they are still in the courtroom trying to go and gather those pages of transcripts from all of the way back if april to may 13th when michael cohen testified. the second request is to reread the jury instructions that judge merchan delivered this morning. this is the packet of jury instructions. he read it once and it took him an hour and a 26 minutes to do so. it is complicate and the case is complex and the jury instructions are complex because it pertained to a lot of legal statues and now the question that the judge just put to the jurors do you want the whole thing read back or a specific part of the jury instructions. that is what we're waiting to hear from the jury in this closing hours of day one ever deliberation. >> so let me read back to you the first part of this which was the first ringing of the bell. is it an actual bell? >> reporter: we're told by lisa rubin that it sounds like a 1960s telephone. so if that takes you back, sometimes government is a little slow to update. but there you go. >> okay. that is my burning question. so those were the four questions that the first ring of the bell were -- that the jury expressed they wanted to see. these are the transcripts they're running down. one, david pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with donald trump while pecker was in the investor meeting. this came up closer to the end when i think the prosecution reminded -- it came up maybe in someone's cross or i don't remember why it came up, but this was trump on the phone with pecker. he pulled him out of a meeting and he said, i don't pay for stuff like this. this seemed like an important part of tieing trump to the whole scheme, vaughn? >> reporter: right. it is around karen mcdougal purchasing of the story. he was at an investor meeting in new jersey when he got this phone call. his assistant came in and said donald trump is on the line and he stepped out and that is when the phone call took place about the specifics of karen mcdougal story and david pecker testified to this jury that he, in fact, thought the story was real and credible and based on the fact that donald trump told him that karen was a quote, nice girl. and that he urged donald trump on that phone call that the story should be purchased. and donald trump followed up saying he should talk to michael, michael cohen, about executing that arrangement. this is all at the beginning of the conspiracy that the jury is having to deliberate over. and we have from the jury instructions that the jury is now asking to be reread to them, that michael cohen was an accomplice in that and under new york state law, you have to have corroborating evidence or testimony and that is where it is interesting to see david pecker, multiple conversations that donald trump had with him being asked to be reread back to them, that specific testimony, because when you match it up, you see corroborating testimony, not just documentary evidence, but there was circumstantial evidence and testimony that david pecker linked donald trump to the beginning of the conspiracy. >> yeah, andrew, i'll ask you to pick up on vaughn's point. let me tell the viewers what happened in the last 60 seconds. the jury has been dismissed for the day after judge merchan brought them back in after they rang their bell a second time. told them they were going to run down the transcripts of this testimony that vaughn just described perfectly. we'll tell what you the other three pieces of testimony are that they want. but the jury wanted the jury instruction read back to them. you waved around your packet. the whole thing took about an hour and a half to read and judge merchan asked them to clarify, whether they wanted the whole instruction or just part of it. so that is where they pick up tomorrow morning at 9:30. >> this gives the judge and the parties to have their ducks in a row so when the jury comes back, they could be ready to go. so everybody understands, this is a normal part as harry knows, of what you have -- whether a jury is out. they could ask to have some kind of instruction reread or some question about the instructions. and rereading it is simple once the jury responds in saying that they want the whole thing read back. he could do that. he just reads that. >> i saw there his instruction, he said i won't give this to you but i will read it to you again. why wouldn't he give them a copy. >> a quirk of new york federal law. i was a federal prosecutor, this would go back to -- many judges would send it back there. some judges didn't. because they really thought that it might have them sort of pars it too much. but that is something that in other courts, but not in new york. in new york they could ask to have it read. more typically, they ask questions like can you please specify some more what beyond a reasonable doubt means. because that is the level of -- in your head how to deal with that and how convey to somebody what a level of certitude is. that is a common question. the other questions. the more interesting one which is the first note where there is endless speculation that goes on as to what does it mean and you could argue it each way. when i was a prosecutor, i argued it against me. no matter what came in, it is awful. no matter how good it was. no one ever wanted me to do trials because i was like we're losing no matter what happened. so i'm a terrible person to ask. >> i was like that with campaigns. >> i said this to someone and that is what is he said. i was exactly the same way. >> every good operative owes -- >> so that was me at trials. and, so, the reason it takes time is not every note is absolutely crystal clear as to the page and line number. as to where do you start, so typically the prosecution or the defense will be wanting to make sure they're points are in there and they'll make arguments to the judge about how to interpret the note. that is why the precise wording, it is like biblical -- >> so let's go. that is important to note. so lets start at the beginning. the first note is the david pecker testimony regarding the testimony in the investor meeting. >> right. i think the judge is going to be like, no, i'm interpreting it by the exact words. it is the phone call and the investor meeting. i don't want to hear about your argument or why he's a truth teller or why he's a liar. all of the things that one side or the other might be pushing for. he's going to be like give me the page and the line number and he's going to go through that. but -- >> why is that important? >> so, you know, this is one where to just take the plus side of it, is the jury is trying to decide did this happen? and josh steinglass just spent, you know, five hours talking about this sort of beginning middle and end of the scheme that he said existed. this is the beginning. and having david pecker also with -- was somebody who to a large extent was not challenged by the defense. one of things that we've been noting is just the unusual nature of not really challenging david pecker and he had damaging testimony, not challenging hope hicks and she had damaging testimony. but stormy daniels, she gets challenged, where it is not that relevant. and so this in some ways is a good note if you're the state because you're thinking i want them to focus on this. but it is also four weeks ago. >> right. >> and the other thing that i think if i were a prosecutor and not a pessimist that i always am and i try to just be rational about it. i would like to -- i would like the note that talked about michael cohen and saying i want to have his version of what happened at the trump tower meeting. because the entire import of the defense summation was don't listen to a thing he has to say. you doent want any read back of him because he was the gloat and the mvp, all of the epithets about him. and why even ask about him. he determined he lies once, two, three times and the jury instruction is it is up to you whether you want to believe it or not. so i like that piece of it. >> so susan, so the second piece of testimony that the jury asked for today in the first note was david pecker's testimony regarding the decision not to finalize and fund the life rights for mcdougal. why is that important? >> i think they're looking at, in this case, decision not to finalize it. because he -- what was it in the mcdougal case, he just didn't go ahead with it. so i think they're looking at the pattern there. both that and the dino the doorman were entered into. and that is the pattern in establishing what it could go to intent, i would think. and then the third and the fourth one are interesting because it is david pecker's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting and then michael cohen's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting. i was focused on those two because i think they're going to want to see what did david pecker say, and what does michael cohen say and how does it line up. because michael cohen, they're going to want and the judge instructed them this morning, because he's a accomplice, as they call them, they have to have corroborating evidence for it. so they're going to want to hear what david pecker said and what michael cohen said and see if there is any discrepancies there. i think that is really important. >> i have said in every hour, every day, that i have no sense of how the jury experienced any of this. but it is interesting that the jury did a better job than we did of sustaining the arc. we covered this day by day. it seems that once michael cohen took the stand we became amnesia patients and everything that came before it felt a lot less of heat and attention and we talked about the cross and the one moment the defense had. but what the jury wants to see are three pieces of evidence and testimony that are from the earliest days of testimony. >> so it your point, i think it matters. the jury tends to see things in a sweep and make credibility judgments relative to others and we tend to cover oh, my lord, there was this thing about the october 24th call. on all of this stuff, i think three things are important. first, they're focusing on pecker and as sue said, they must find corroboration. whether or not they believe cohen or not. so that seems to be they're zeroing in. and two, pecker said he believes trump is lying. pecker said, when by nice girl, he thought this was true, et cetera. so that seems to suggest they're looking at his overall credibility. and third, maybe most important, he adds this later, it is only two pages of transcript, he'll be able to read it back. if there is any issue, go to cohen. so it strongly corroborates the idea ma michael cohen put forward that he's the fixer and everything he's doing is because trump gave the instruction to anyone and everyone but specially david pecker. i think that is the money part of that call. >> when i see in knowing the trump political story as well as i did, what was for me is pecker, as a press we never knew what he told the southern district of new york. so the trump tower meeting whether it is pecker's testimony or cohen's, they're both about a meeting in which trump called a trump between him and pecker. >> and this is the period where everything you reverse engineer and work eight different ways but that is the headline. this is trump's direct involvement. this is bad news for donald trump as i interpret this question. we're always interpreting. >> tea leaves, yes. >> but it is focusing on his credibility and his role in the scheme including causing these false statements to have been made in the first place. >> remember, that is josh steinglass at 8:00 p.m. last night, the last part of his summation was about just go back over the highlights of direct participation of donald trump. he wanted to nail that down. and the powerpoint he used, if you were in the courtroom, was sort of remarkable. because as he hit a point, it was sort of pop out the exhibit for the testimony. so it kept on populating. so by the end, what looked like a small list was like a -- the tree. and so -- >> do they have them, control room? no, that is a great point. and it is interesting to me that the documents were in front of them day in and day out. we got them in a different method. which is why we're trying to see if we have them. the jury saw the documents. they probably saw your famous witness exhibit 35. so what they're looking for is actually what people said. >> yeah. exactly. and now because they have the laptop in there, so the sort of hard evidence is something that they could access. that is why the two types of notes are really the only two types that we'll see. which is law notes and witness notes. and so that makes total sense. it would be getting that. this is -- just to warn people. this is the slog part of the -- because you want the final answer. but there is a lot of -- there is a lot of peas and vegetables that you have to eat to get to the end. and, so, if they also -- you could assume if they are starting there, there will be other things like this along the way. and as judge merchan has said to the parties, i want your -- what it is that you're each saying i should read and he'll make a decision on that. presumably all that will happen this afternoon so that the first thing that happens tomorrow morning will be the read. >> by friday, that ring tone, when we hear it, we'll have traumatic -- in response. >> speaking of pavlov responses. vaughn hillyard, i have not seen with my own eyeballs but eye seen some press coverage of trump's expressions, i guess you could call them. messages or misses. his posts on social media. i think the technical term is flipping out. what is your sense? >> reporter: he was posting a lot of right-wing commentators and allies, number one, who were posting their own you know sides of trial and why they think that donald trump should be acquitted. but then there was also other posts which you are directly alluding to and i think your description of them would be accurate. but it was him misrepresenting the charges that were brought before him. and conflating the unlawful manner that there is part of the statute that is being articulated as part of the new york state election law. and conflating that with a broader idea that the jurors are able to find him guilty on a matter of number of issues and that it is not one specific charges that he's facing. and he himself said that he doesn't even know what the charges against him are. which is just not accurate. if in fact he was listening to the hour and 26 minutes of jury instructions. because over the course of the that time, judge merchan read not once, but twice, the statutes that he is facing and the jury is deliberating on whether he's guilty of. so right now he's holding in a side room as the two sides are deliberating over what pages of testimony are going to be read to the jurors tomorrow. so he's still at that courthouse and when he is not in the courtroom, he does clearly have access to his phone. and he's so far put it to good use during the more than four hours of deliberation so far. >> susan? >> i want to talk a little bit about michael cohen. because the questions three and four are important. they want to see pecker's testimony and michael cohen's testimony. and i want to pair that up with what the jury was told this morning by the judge because there is so much discussion about michael cohen and he's a liar and could we believe him and if you believe part of what he said and is that okay and still think he's a liar. and here is what the judge told the jury. michael cohen is an accomplice because there is evident that he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant. and what they were told was, there short, even if you find that the testimony of michael cohen to be believable, you may not convict the defendant solely upon the testimony unless you also find there was corroborated other evidence tending to co