> right now at 11:28 eastern, i'm asking you to step out to begin deliberations. >> the jury has been dismi"> > right now at 11:28 eastern, i'm asking you to step out to begin deliberations. >> the jury has been dismi" property="og:description"> > right now at 11:28 eastern, i'm asking you to step out to begin deliberations. >> the jury has been dismi">
♪♪ tonight on "the reidout" -- >> right now at 11:28 eastern, i'm asking you to step out to begin deliberations. >> the jury has been dismissed to begin deliberations. >> the jurors are now leaving the courtroom to deliberate. >> and we are told they are expeditiously to begin deliberations. >> for the first time in american history, a jury is deciding whether a former president of the united states committed felonies. and as the deliberations began, the jury made several requests to the judge. meanwhile, trump and his defenders are bracing for the verdict by attacking the judge, lying about the jury instructions, and increasingly portraying trump as a martyr. reporting on justice sam alito's insurrectionist flags. he's now throwing his wife even further under the bus. and refusing to recuse from trump cases, earning a pat on the head from trump himself. after 22 days in cord, following 22 witnesses, giving more than 80 hours of testimony, plus more than seven hours of closing arguments, and just over an hour of jury instructions from the judge -- we are now in the final stage of the first-ever criminal trial of a former u.s. president. the 12-member jury made up of manhattan residents began their deliberations today behind closed doors in donald trump's hush money election interference trial. those deliberations began at 11:37 a.m., to be exact. for these jurors, who have been sitting side by side in the courtroom for weeks, this was the first time they were allowed to speak to one another about the case. up to that moment, the rules prohibited them from saying anything about this trial to one another as they listened to the prosecutors and the defense make their cases. the jury sent two notes to judge juan mar chan this afternoon, going to hear sections from various witness testimonies read back to them. three involving the former national enquirer publisher david pecker, one from trump's former lawyer, michael cohen. that includes the testimony pec trump tower meeting where the caption kill scheme was discussed with trump. they asked to re-hear the jury instructions that the judge had read to them this morning. judge marchan released the jurors after more than four hours of deliberations and told them to return tomorrow morning, at which point the testimonies will be read back to them. then they will continue their deliberations over whether they believe trump is guilty or not guilty of the 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection to the hush money payments made to adult film star stormy daniels near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign. before the deliberations began, the judge carefully and in detail walked the jury through the charges, making it clear what trump was being charged with and what was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. some of those instructions could be seen as helpful to the defense, including the judge telling jurors that when weighing a witness' testimony, they could consider whether the witness had a motive to lie and an interest in the outcome of the case. and if the witness had been convicted of a crime or engaged in criminal conduct. and perhaps helpful to the prosecution was marchan's jury instruction that when it comes to proving the underlying crime that would raise the falsification of business records to a felony, new york election law 17-152, which prohibits a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he told them, quote, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. and while we await a verdict from this jury, one thing we do know at this point, counter to all the whining coming from the defendant and his maga followers, that is donald trump was given the same rights as every other american citizen in our judicial system. in fact, it could even be argued he was given preferential treatment, especially given his repeated violations of his gag order. but like every other defendant, he was given his day in court. he was given the opportunity to testify on his own behalf, which he ultimately chose not to do. and now his fate is being deliberated by a jury of his peers. joining me now is lisa rubin, msnbc legal correspondent, who i ran into in the courtroom today because she was there. andrew weissman, msnbc legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. katie phang, trial attorney and host of "the katie phang show." lochlan cartwright, special correspondent for "the hollywood reporter" and "the national enquirer," a permanent captive at msnbc. we keep you around. lisa, i did get to see you today. i found the jury questions interesting. the things that they actually asked that they wanted to see more of. talk more about that. >> i thought it was absolutely fascinating. so joy, let's start from the presumption that the jury doesn't have these instructions with them. in fact, the second request was to have some of them or all of them read back. we don't know exactly what yet they have to clarify in the morning. but if you take on faith that they are moving through these instructions in the order that they were given to them -- >> yes, that's what struck me too. they seem to be going in order. >> one of the things i find interesting is that there are obviously a bunch of instructions that are not specific to this crime. >> yes. >> when you get to the stuff that is specific to the crime, it starts with, on page 27, falsification -- >> this is like bible reading. turn in your hymnals to page 27. the gospel of falsifying business records in the first degree, haul lieu yaw. >> falsifying business records in the first degree. and it takes us through the required elements of falsification of the business records. it goes through all of that and various phrases that are important to that crime before it gets to the question of the underlying or the predicate crime that would bump it up to a felony, new york election law 17-152. that is the conspiracy to promote or prevent somebody's election to public office by unlawful means. >> right. >> all the questions that they asked today, those four questions for specific testimony, all go to the question of the existence of the conspiracy, the participation in certain acts that would have been in furtherance of the conspiracy. so one thing that you might be able to deduce, if they are going in order, they may have crossed the rubicon of the falsification and decided, yes, it did happen, and donald trump is responsible for it. but they have to satisfy themselves that he is not just knowledgeable about the conspiracy, but an actual participant in it. >> yeah. >> and someone with knowledge of critical steps along the way. >> yeah, and one of the things i did find interesting, listening to it, the judge is saying, just being knowledgeable about the conspiracy, knowing it happened, that does not make you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. he had to materially participate it in. but benefiting from it -- there are ways in which he was really out to helping the prosecution. i want to talk about this specific thing. they went right to david pecker's testimony. they wanted david pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with donald trump while pecker was in the investor meeting. they wanted pecker's testimony regarding his decision not to finalize and fund karen macdougal's life rights. they wanted pecker's testimony regarding the august 15 trump tower meeting. they wanted michael cohen's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting per judge marchan's jury instructions. they went right to pecker's testimony. >> and two of those requests relate back to that meeting at trump tower in august of 2015, two months after donald trump announces that he is running for election. david pecker is called by michael cohen. he actually says he knew they wanted something, that's the only reason he ever heard from michael cohen. when he goes there they say what can you do for us, to help the campaign? he says, open the eyes and ears, i'll purchase negative stories off the market while running negative stories about your rivals and helping promote donald trump. that is the layering of this conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. and then what happens is the sequence of events that follows. the doorman payoff in the fall of 2015. in 2016, fast forward to the karen mcdougal payment. and then stormy daniels. and that one is crucial, obviously, because of the falsification of business records. that goes on because david pecker says, i'm not going to be the bank, i'm not going to step up the money here. 2017, they cook up this plot to falsify the business records. what is the layering of all of that? that meeting, and that is why david pecker is essential in that testimony because he then puts donald trump in the room, much like that phone call at the investor conference. he then illustrates to the jury that donald trump had knowledge of the karen mcdougal situation. >> this is where it comes to -- i'm going to ask you this question, because you are both a journalist and an attorney. it comes to the question of whether or not, what david pecker is doing is proper journalism, legitimate journalism that he would have done regardless of who donald trump is, or whether or not it was a campaign contribution. this is the law, the federal election campaign, fica. under the federal election campaign act, it is unlawful to levelly maim a contribution with respect to any election or office, including office of the president of the united states, exceeding $2,700. the question becomes, are these schemes david pecker is engaged in him doing what he would normally do, catch and kill, just a thing, or making a contribution? he pleaded guilty, basically, to doing that. >> yes. >> or made a deal. >> there was a conciliation agreement, a nonprosecution agreement. what's important is joshua steinglass touched on all of this. i was looking like the contrarian whichd, i didn't have a problem with the four hours from joshua steinglass. the reason is he had one bite at the apple. he was the last voice heard by the jury. he had to go through all the evidence. the reason why i bring that up is steinglass said in his closing arguments, the value of what was provided from these catch and kill schemes was invaluable. you couldn't actually put a price tag on it. because it helped him in a way you couldn't put a dollar sign on it. i think also, we need to remember, there have been 22 witnesses in this case. six weeks of trial. david pecker was the first witness that was called. >> that's right, yes. >> to and some extent, it could be as much as, i need to have a refresh of my recollection, to use a trial term, of what david pecker said. it also could go to the accomplice as a matter of law jury instructions, page 22. >> let me turn in my hymnbook, hold on a second. >> this is the jury direction that a lot of us raised eyebrows when we heard it read to the jury today because it specifically identifies michael cohen as an an accomplice to a crime. it says under new york law, you cannot convict a defendant based solely on the testimony or evidence provided by an accomplice. so you'd ask yourself, how does that make sense? jurors should be allowed to determine the credibility of any witness in a trial. but new york law says you can't convict solely on the testimony or the evidence provided by an accomplice. however, if that testimony is supported by corroborative evidence tending to connect trump with the commission of that crime, then you can convict. so if you marry together david pecker, his testimony from the trump tower meeting, that with michael cohen, and then you also get to what i call the original sin. the original sin was that 2015 trump tower meeting. it was always, let's do the catch and kill, because we know you've announced your candidacy, unofficially at that point. we know that's what the ultimate goal is. so it's a very elegant way to tie it together. you'd like to think the jury took stein glass' closing, the last thing they heard, and walked into deliberations with it. >> what i love about the way this jury is working, if i were a juror, i'd do this because it's easier to go back to the beginning, back to the first witnesses, go back to david pecker, and proceed from there. that's what it looks like they're doing, being methodical. this is about david pecker's credibility. "you will recall that you heard testimony --" this is the judge speaking to the jury -- "while david pecker was an executive at ami, entered into a nonprosecution agreement with federal prosecutors as well as a conciliation agreement with the federal election commission. i would remind you that evidence will permit you to assess david becker's credibility and help provide context for some of the surrounding events. you may consider that testimony for these purposes only, neither the nonprofit agreement nor conciliation agreement is evidence of defendant's guilt. you may not consider them when determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty." it's a reminder. >> reminds me how well josh steinglass dealt with the same issue with michael cohen, who pled guilty to the same crime and said, that can't be used to say because michael cohen pled guilty, that means donald trump's guilty. he used it to say, you can understand why michael cohen is so angry. because he is left holding the bag. >> yes. >> he is not the top of the food chain. >> yeah. >> by the way, we are now in full tea leaf reading. >> we are, i know. >> my tea leaf reading is very much that this is chronology, as well as i'd add to your point about the chronology, josh steinglass, the last person they heard from, 8:00 p.m. last night, he pointed to this meeting and said, go back to this meeting. i cannot stress enough how important it is. part of it is because you have david pecker as a principal, donald trump as a principal, who is michael cohen? michael cohen is, nicolle wallace's term, a staffer. he is not a principal. he's being told at the meeting, you are donald trump's agent. you are going to be doing the work for him. but that -- he specifically said, focus on this. >> yeah. >> one way to look at this is, it's both chronological, but it was something the prosecution has to be happy about. >> that's right. >> doesn't mean it's going to be a conviction, but they have to be happy that he pointed to -- he really wanted them to focus on this. that's the first note. >> at that meeting, michael cohen is clearly not the principal. >> right. >> he is doing the work. and then he turns around and puts up his own money then gets his $35,000 -- it doesn't feel like it could be a retainer because he feels like a staffer. >> correct. the other thing that was interesting with what the jury is looking at is the karen mcdougal situation where they look to buy her life rights back. there's this conversation which is recorded saying, we're worried about david pecker being hit by a truck. >> right. >> we need to get all this material back. they start to come to a financial agreement with david pecker, and there is an amount, i think 125, to get it down from covers. and whatnot. then they go and get legal guidance, and the general counsel goes and gets legal guidance and realizes this as really bad idea, to be doing this. >> yeah. >> then they call it off. it shows that intent. it shows guilt in terms of what david becker and ami realize, that they're a part of an illegal campaign contribution. >> if i rob a bank and you work with me to rob a bank but i give you the money, in the end, i might be kind of mad if i go to jail and you make a deal and you don't. then i might be mad at you. you can take into account my anger. that doesn't mean you didn't do it. >> you're looking at me? >> why do i have katie phang robbing the bank? i had so many choices. >> i'm flattered, i guess. >> you're the ringleader. >> i feel like -- you're making you the main character. >> i'm the mastermind. >> no one's going anywhere, it's a hostage situation, everyone stays with us. we are awaiting verdict in the first criminal trial of a former president. we have our bible, reading more from it when we come back. i can love my skin again. with bimzelx. only bimzelx targets and blocks il-17a plus f to calm inflammation. i can control my plaques, and start getting myself back. bimzelx helps adults with moderate to severe psoriasis control plaques, to deliver clearer skin fast, for results that last. i will give myself back the freedom of shorts. dare to wear black again from head to toe. (♪♪) most people got 100% clear skin. some after the first dose. serious side effects, including suicidal thoughts and behavior, infections and lowered ability to fight them, liver problems, and inflammatory bowel disease, have occurred. tell your doctor if these happen or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. (♪♪) start to get yourself back, with bimzelx. ask your dermatologist about bimzelx today. [crowd cheering] it may not seem like it, ♪♪ but this, is actually progress in play. a shell energy 100% renewable electricity plan lighting every soccer match at shell energy stadium. we're moving forward with the houston dash. because we're moving forward with everybody. ♪♪ shell. powering progress. back with me, lisa rubin, andrew weissman, katie phang, who is going to share when the bank is completely robbed. >> that's what we do with accessories. >> we've decided lachlan is the bank robber, we apologize for it. you'll go back to australia and be fine, you're good. we admitted in the break we shouldn't do, not really speculation because you cannot speculate, we don't want to do anything identifying. katie, you did a fascinating thing earlier where you talked about some of the things we know about these jurors. we know two lawyers, teachers. tell us more about this jury. >> yes, so i had my debut at the big board today. i said i was katie, not kornacki in khakis. what we're trying to do is trying to distill the information that we already know about these jurors that was limited to their answers to the 42 questions provided in the jury questionnaire, also their responsive answers. we're guarded because we don't want to disclose, they're anonymous. educational background, things like podcasts. one of them listens to "behavioral therapy" podcast. there's another guy who's retired wealth management who does yoga and teaches it. again, to andrew's point, we are reading tea leaves. there's a science to jury selection, but there's kind of just magic and voodoo when it comes to the deliberations process. but the purpose of doing the big board was to show, one, we really can't predict. two, to some extent, we can. we can look at certain situations. that's why when you look at your jury makeup and you read the questions that are provided or the notes, you can kind of advance your speculation. >> are they getting their news from truth social versus fox? >> i wanted to correct that. a lot of people freaked out saying there's this juror who gets news from truth social. that's not what he said. he said, part of what i read are trumps posts on twitter. heck, we all see them, sometimes they're inevitable to see. that's not indisha, necessarily, that the juror is a maga trump supporter, he just happens to see it when it comes across his feed. >> how much do prosecutors fret about this kind of stuff? probably a lot, right? we now know from reporting that trump's people are looking at their best-case scenario being a hung jury. and that they're hanging it on one juror they think got excited when he saw j.d. vance, maybe looked youery when they didn't -- they're trying to read tea leaves. there are people people are trying to read these jurors. >> the answer to, do prosecutors fret about this? the answer is, they fret about this and everything else that you could ask