for that courtroom bell. there have already been three notes from the jury in donald trump's hush money trial, including one that led some key testimony to being read back to them today. will that help them move along deliberations? plus, a former president trying to pass the time. donald trump now has a tv in his waiting room, along with his phone, and he's posting a lot on social media, railing against what he calls a ridiculous case. getting some backup, donald trump's vp contenders look to score points with complaints about the jury instructions. only problem, they flubbed a critical detail. and the long road to a verdict. a big board break down of all the steps the jury needs to take before they can deliver this historic decision. our nbc news reporters are following all of the latest developments. we begin with nbc's yasmin vossoughian live outside the courthouse for us once again. walk us through what the jury wanted to hear today, yasmin. >> reporter: they wanted to hear four separate things when it came to testimony, three things with david pecker's testimony, one with michael cohen. when it came to david pecker, they were considering and wanted to hear testimony of an investor meeting he was sitting in on when he got a phone call from donald trump, when donald trump asked him on his opinion on the karen mcdougal case. i'm paraphrasing that craig is a nice girl, and donald trump should pay karen mcdougal to make the story go away. donald trump saying, i don't pay for the stories, they come out. david pecker saying, i think you should pay for this one. i'm going to think about it. i'll get michael cohen on it. he'll get back to you. another about buying karen mcdougal's life rights in which there was back and forth between david pecker and michael cohen. david pecker said he was tearing up the agreement when it came to buying her life rights, michael cohen saying the boss is going to be angry, being asked who was the boss, saying it's donald trump. michael cohen then going on to say donald trump will, in fact, take care of you. the boss, i should say, will take care of you, and then two testimonies they wanted to hear when it came to that infamous 2015 trump tower meeting, both testimony from david pecker on that meeting, from michael cohen on that meeting as well. and we know that exchange quite well now at this point. michael cohen, david pecker, donald trump, in trump tower, hope hicks coming in and out. the conversation was about essentially david pecker being the eyes and ears for the campaign, making sure they can plant defaming articles about donald trump's opponents in "national enquirer," putting positive spin on pieces about donald trump, and looking out for any women that would kind of quote, unquote, come would have the wood work as donald trump was running for president. and the jury instructions, pages 6 of 35 of the jury instructions that were read or re-read. one thing that stood out within these jury instructions was basically evident inferences. say you go to bed and it's not raining, and you wake up in the morning and the ground is wet and people are walking around with umbrellas. you can draw from that evidence that, in fact, it rained overnight. that was an example they gave in the jury instructions. another was how to find david pecker and michael cohen credible. david pecker obviously signing this non-prosecution agreement with the s.e.c. you can take that to assess his credibility, not to assess, for instance, whether or not donald trump is guilty or not guilty with michael cohen, of course, pleading guilty. lying under oath, taking that to assess his credibility, not whether donald trump is guilty or not guilty. a lot happening this morning, still inside deliberations, chris. at any moment now, or in a few days from now, we really don't know, can't even make an educated guess at this point as to when we could get a verdict. >> the educated guess is there's no way to know. yasmin vossoughian, thank you very much. the former president absolutely does have a new addition to his courthouse waiting room, and it's a tv set. nbc's dasha burns is following that. okay. so what's that about? >> reporter: well, look, chris, the former president's time is not his own right now. he's spending the day either in the holding room or in the courtroom or being shuttled between the two based on jury questions, based on what transpires here in the court, right? so he did get a television inside his holding room. we don't know what channel he's watching. we know that he is on social media because we are seeing pretty consistent flow of posts from him today. he is posting about this case being ridiculous, saying he did nothing wrong, in fact, he did everything right. he's posting about ndas, saying that ndas are perfectly legal and common. he's also posting about complaining that he cannot be on the campaign trail right now, which is really important for his team, as i have been talking to folks behind the scenes here. my sources say they are planning to really hit the ground running as soon as this is over, because he hasn't been able to be out there. he hasn't been able to rally supporters in battleground states, he is rallying supporters in other ways. we have been getting those fundraising e-mails sent out consistently, fundraising off of this case. fundraising off of voters showing him that they still support him. he's always asking in these fundraising e-mails, are you still with me, and of course there are some supporters here across the street from the courthouse, not a huge group, some of the same faces we saw yesterday, some new ones as we all sit here and wait and see what we get from the jury, chris. >> dasha burns, they are now seven hours and nine minutes into deliberations, thank you. well, some of the big names on donald trump's vp short list are now trying to spin the jury instructions as proof that the trial is rigged. nbc's vaughn hillyard that has more on this for us. vaughn, explain what's going on here. give us a fact check, if you will. >> reporter: right. for weeks now, chris, we have heard donald trump take on the entirety of this case and the criminal proceedings against him. on a myriad of points. and now, over the last 24 hours you have seen as the jury began deliberations, some of the key political allies on the right come to his defense, particularly taking aim at jury instructions. if you look at kristi noem, the south dakota governor, she's posting on social media, a defense of donald trump, suggesting that the jury instructions were a violation of federal law. but then you also had marco rubio, the florida senator come out with his own tweet in which he said, judge in trump case in new york city they told the jury, they don't have to unanimously agree on which crime was committed as long as they pick one. of course that is a misrepresentation of what judge merchan said as part of his jury instructions and what the actual crime that donald trump has been charged with is, and then you have tom cotton, the arkansas senator saying, remember, the only reason this preposterous case was brought is because joe biden is weak, dishonest and a failed president who can't run on his record. we just in the last few moments saw north dakota governor doug burgum who has been here at the courthouse with donald trump, he came out and talked with newsmax, a right wing television outlet before walking back into the courtroom here. but also, you have not seen another vp potential candidate. that would be tim scott. instead, he just posted earlier today on his social media account a video him of talking about this case. take a listen. >> donald trump is not on trial. donald trump is a victim of a witch hunt, a witch hunt brought by the only person in the courtroom who's guilty, alvin bragg, d.a. bragg, guilty of not doing his job. guilty of frankly pandering to the democratic party. guilty of an in-kind contribution to the dnc, and guilty of perverting the justice system. >> reporter: we are just over five months away from this white house election here in november, and you see some of the biggest faces in the republican party coming staunchly to donald trump's defense, and questioning and undercutting these criminal proceedings against him, chris. >> vaughn hillyard, thank you. i want to bring in katie phang at the big board for us. welcome back. >> thank you. >> a lot of people are wondering, what if they come to the point, we might be near a verdict. what are the steps they have to take before they send a note to the judge. >> the totally incorrect law for advocates and surrogates, it has to be a unanimous verdict. i think it's important for our viewers, chris, to walk through the law in this case so they understand it's not as complex, and it's not that difficult for the jury to get there. to refresh everybody's recollection, our 12 jurors, seven men and five women. this is specifically what they're going to go through. as you'll recall this morning. judge merchan read pages 6 through 35 of the jury instructions again to this jury, and part of those pages 6 through 35 included the following, what is the crime in this case. the jurors are going to have to unanimously agree, all 12 have to agree that donald trump falsified business records or actually caused someone else to falsify business records and did so with the intent to conceal the crime. the big question is what's the other crime. the other crime is according to the prosecution, trump violated new york election law. well, how? because he promoted an election to have an outcome by either hiding something or helping or preventing a public official from making it into office through unlawful means. chris, this is where the analysis of unanimous jurors stops, meaning, you got to have all 12 agree up to this point. here's where the luxury comes in. again, i will say it's called the buffet of criminality. what are the unlawful means that donald trump and others used to be able to get across the finish line and conceal information and violate the new york election laws. the jury has heard, donald trump violated the federal election campaign act. he also falsified other business records or had others falsify business records. he violated tax laws. the amazing things about the unlawful means is that the jurors don't have to all agree. they could all on their own decide one of these three things happened, and as long as they come to a determination, that unlawful means were used, what do you end up with? a guilty verdict. just to recap very quickly, what you end up doing is this, you end up having, if i can get back to your original instructions, this is your tech gremlins for us. what you end up having is the unlawful means that were used to be able to promote or prevent a public official, and then it was done through the falsification of business records as well. and so that's really what the jurors have to come to a conclusion, and it has to be a unanimous decision. but not, again, for the unlawful means. >> you handled that so well. unbelievable. tech may not work, but katie phang, ladies and gentlemen. always knows what's going on. thank you, my friend. coming up, the power of reasonable doubt, the key issues that the defense is hoping will lead to trump's acquittal on 34 counts. 4 counts . then, you ate so many of the impossible that we completely ran out. and now... ♪♪ they're backk! the footlong cookie is back at subway! my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. smile! you found it. the feeling of finding psoriasis can't filter out the real you. so go ahead, live unfiltered with the one and only sotyktu, a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding you're so ready for your close-up. or finding you don't have to hide your skin just your background. once-daily sotyktu was proven better, getting more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. there's only one sotyktu, so ask for it by name. so clearly you. sotyktu. we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that perfect pizza. and with higher stroke risk from afib not caused by a heart valve problem,... ...we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking, you may bruise more easily... ...or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor about eliquis. (man) every time i needed a new phone, blood thinner. i had to switch carriers... (roommate) i told him...at verizon, everyone can get the best deals, like that iphone 15 on them. (man) switching all the time...it wasn't easy. (lady) 35! (store customer) you're gonna be here forever. (man) i know. (employee) here is your wireless contract. (man) do i need a lawyer for this? those were hard days. representative. switch! now that i got a huge storage and battery upgrade... i'm officially done switching. (vo) new and existing customers get iphone 15 on us when they trade in any iphone, any condition. guaranteed. (man) i really wished you told me sooner. a slow network is no network for business. that's why more choose comcast business. and now, we're introducing ultimate speed for business —our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the speeds... at no additional cost. it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. don't miss out on our fastest speed plans yet! switch to comcast business and get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to an $800 prepaid card. call today! today our team inside the courtroom describes the jurors as remarkably engaged while judge merchan read the jury instructions they need to follow as they weigh their verdict. one of the sections read is about what's needed for a conviction. it requires, quote, proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's identity as the person who committed the crime. so as they weigh the prosecution's case right now, are their holes that might cause jurors to stop and even as we saw at the start of court today, ask for parts of testimony to be re-read. joining us now, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the mueller probe, andrew weissmann, kristy greenberg, and diana paul are also back with us. thank you for joining us, andrew. is there something that stands out to you that if the jury got stuck, and i mean they need to have a more fulsome conversation, not necessarily something that would lead them to not have a verdict. is there a point of confusion or contention that seems most obvious to you? >> no. >> never with a jury? >> right now it has been a day. it's too soon to be thinking there's a problem or issue. normal notes in a case are read backs if you don't have the actual jury charge with you, a read back of the law makes total sense. >> including reasonable doubt. they wanted to know what the specific wording was of that. >> first of all, that's a common thing. they wanted more than that. i'm trying to resist the tea leaf reading part of this. just remember, even on what is the legal standard and what does it mean, it's really common. think about the english language, trying to encapsulate what the level of certainty is in your head, when i said do you think that's true by probable cause or clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, those are legal words trying to get at how firmly do you believe something based on the evidence. that's not a normal concept for people in terms of thinking through the issues. that's a normal thing to be asking and for readbacks of testimony, this is a long trial. there are lots of witnesses. they were just bombarded for eight hours with jury summations about what they should be thinking and doing and how to use the evidence, so it's normal, particularly for a first witness, who's the furthest away from where they are in time to ask that. so i just sort of think at this point, we have no idea what's really going on, and whether there's a hold out or whether they're all getting along or whether they're not. you just can't tell yet. >> one of the things we have talked a lot about, diana, and for full disclosure with the audience is what it means to have a highly educated jury. this is a very highly educated jury, not just the two lawyers we are talking about but a number of them with advanced degrees. a number of them that seem to have jobs that require a lot of if not creative, then very detailed thinking, and would that make it more difficult because sometimes the more detail oriented you are, the deeper dive you go. does the fact this this is a highly educated jury tell us anything about it? >> i think it could make them more thoughtful as they move through the verdict sheet. but at the end of the day, they're not supposed to bring their expertise like the lawyers, into the deliberation room. as we saw earlier, judge merchan recharged the jury on circumstantial evidence and the way that they can draw inferences from the evidence. so they are already clearly talking about the elements of the crime, and they're already clearly talking about what can we draw from the things that came out during the course of the trial. >> and i know we've had this conversation before, christy, but now that we are actually in jury deliberations and i think during voir dire, one of the lawyers said i don't do criminal law, i don't know that much about criminal law, which may be the reason he ended up on the jury. although i suspect he may know more about the law or at least those terms that andrew, you know, referenced, he understands them more easily than the average human being. but should we necessarily assume they'll have more influence with the other jurors right now? >> so at least when i was a prosecutor, the rule of thumb at sdny was do not put lawyers on your jury. >> you're just not dependable, credible people. >> that is not why. >> okay. >> i think the thinking there is they're going to be the leaders of the jury, and it is hard, i think, sometimes to separate what you may know outside from what you're given in the judge's instructions and you think they're going to be influential. it's hard to know which way that will cut, are they going to pick apart the prosecution's case or go along and understand the concepts you have. it's a bit of a wild card, and knowing they will be influential, sometimes i think just the logic was tha