good to be with you. i'm katy tur. all eyes are on lower manhattan where five women and seven men are in their eighth hour of deliberations, tasked with deciding whether donald trump is guilty of a cover up to interfere with the 2016 election. this morning, the jurors asked the court for a second hearing of key testimony. the descriptions from both michael cohen and david pecker about the 2015 trump tower meeting where the three men agreed to work together to promote and protect donald trump in the press. from pecker, quote, at that meeting, donald trump and michael, they asked me what i can do and what my magazine could do to help the campaign. i said what i would do is i would run or publish positive stories about mr. trump, and i would publish negative stories about his opponents. i said i would be your eyes and ears. if i hear anything negative or hear anything about women selling stories, i would notify michael cohen. this from michael cohen's testimony, quote, what he, david pecker said was he could keep an eye out for anything negative about mr. trump, and that he would be able to help us to know in advance what was coming out and to try to stop it from coming out. the jury also asked for the judge to read back his instructions, laying out the crimes they are considering, and how they need to consider them, including the definition of reasonable doubt. from judge juan merchan, quote, it is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. it is a doubt of reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance would be likely to entertain because of the evidence presented or the lack of convincing evidence. so, will the jury find donald trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if so, will they be convinced on all 34 counts. we could find out any moment, joining us now, nbc news national correspondent, yasmin vossoughian who's outside of that new york city courthouse for us. also with us is former assistant district attorney in manhattan and msnbc legal analyst, catherine christian, former assistant district attorney of the manhattan d.a.'s office, daniel horowitz, and former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, duncan levin. when i was in the overflow room, i could donald trump, the prosecution, the defense, the judge, the woman playing the michael cohen and david pecker roles, reading back the testimony. i could not see the jury. what insight do we have about the jury and what they were doing this morning as they were getting back the jury instructions but also getting back that key testimony? >> the ever important jury, right, that's what everyone is focused on right now when it comes to what's happening inside that courtroom or as we should say at this point, what's happening inside that deliberation room, if any of us could be a fly on the wall, what we would hear. as these jury instructions were being read back to the jury, as parts of this testimony from both david pecker and michael cohen were being read back to the jury, i am being told from those reporters that were inside the courtroom, the jurors were taking notes. they were taking lots of notes. they were turning over pages as well. we know now who the jury foreperson was. it was the first juror that was chosen when the jury was actually seated. that individual, i was told, was actually not taking notes, but everybody else in that jury box were, in fact, very much taking notes issue especially during the portion of those jury instructions. katy, you have seen it, so many of us have seen it at this point. these are the jury instructions. 55 pages long. this is incredibly difficult to understand, even though i've read it four times over at this point. i still don't get it at certain points. by the way, you can't take it into the deliberation room. you can imagine why jurors are taking notes, so studiously, especially in the lead-up to count one. one other thing i think i would note, when it comes to the jury, they pay a lot of attention, take a lot of cues from judge juan merchan, and we kind of took that away from when we saw the testimony of stormy daniels, when we saw the testimony of michael cohen, and how focused in the jury was on judge juan merchan's instructions to the jury. i can remember this example of her testimony, when she was chided by judge merchan. it seemed as if the jury was kind of taking from judge juan merchan's energy at that point, and i imagine they were doing the exact same thing during these jury instructions as he was walking through them very slowly, and even saying, listen, don't take anything away from the intonation of my voice during these jury instructions, right? this is just to make sure you are understanding these instructions clearly, katy. >> and he was reading them very slowly because as you said, they're complicated, they're also very wordy, i mean, they could use an editor, just me saying it. they could use an editor, simplify the language, make it a little plainer. >> slash some words. >> just some red pen. yasmin, talk to me about the way those jury instructions, though, are being used to the advantage of those who have nefarious purposes, what's nbc news reporting regarding threats to the judge on the basis of those jury instructions? >> so as it often happens, there are folks that are taking these jury instructions in other parts of the media online as well, and kind of more of the right wing corners of online media, and misinterpreting what is actually being delivered by judge juan merchan in these 55 pages of jury instructions, specifically when it comes to the unanimity of a decision, right, that at this point there is a message that's being put out there that this jury does not need to have a unanimous decision. and because of that now, there are threats against judge juan merchan, and i'll give you two examples of those threats, and i'm going to give you the fact check of what judge juan mer chan actually said when it came to the decision of the threats being heard right now online. at one point, someone posting time to find out where judge juan merchan lives and protest. judge juan merchan is the merchant of death, threats like that are being posted online now by kind of the right wing corners of, you know, the internet. the reality of what was said in these jury instructions, let me read this quickly, judge juan merchan saying that you must conclude unanimously that a defendant conspired to promote or event the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, adding that they need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. and that there, katy is the distinction. >> all right. let's bring to the table, catherine, talk to me about the jury instructions, we have gone over this so many times about not having a need to be unanimous, but i think people are surprised by that because when you think of a criminal jury, everything you have been told over the years, if you know anything about it is that the jury does have to be unanimous. how is it that they don't have to agree on the underlying intent here? >> that's actually not true. what yasmin said was for the unlawful means not unanimous, but for whether or not he caused false entries, they have to find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did it with the intent to defraud, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did it with the intent to commit or conceal a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that other crime is new york election law, conspireing to promote an election by unlawful means, all 12, beyond a reasonable doubt. the piece that has been misstated, misconstrued, just lied about is the unlawful means piece. the unlawful means could be federal campaign violation, tax law violation or falsification of other business records. that piece, the jurors have five, seven on the others, but everything else, the main charge, and what's offensive, there is someone on another network who's a former judge, a former d.a. who was a very good d.a., by the way, in new york who is part of this kor ris of misinformation. if the judge had said, you do not have to be unanimous about whether or not donald trump falsified business records, the lawyers have been running to the appellate division and filing a new york article 78 writ of prohibition, that did not happen and that's been out there, and it's just false. they have to be unanimous for the main charge, which is falsifying business records. >> the other thing that's being misconstrued is that this jury doesn't have access to the rules because the judge isn't allowing them to have access to the jury instructions. they can't bring those instructions back with them, again, perpetuated by people who know better. >> no jury can do that. >> explain that. >> in new york in 1987, new york's highest court, which is called the court of appeals. it's not called the supreme court. that's our trial court. here in new york, we call the highest court the court of appeals. in 1987, the court of appeals issued a decision that said jurors are not allowed to take the actual written charge with them into the jury room. now, whether that makes sense in today's world doesn't matter because that's what the law is. so anybody who says otherwise is misstating what the law is and frankly, jurors are smart. when they need help, they did exactly what they did yesterday. they rang the bell, and they said, judge, can you give us the instructions again. and they'll do that again and again as long as they need to, until they reach a verdict. >> we could hear a bell any moment. we heard a bell two minutes before air yesterday. they're coming up on eight hours and 14 minutes of deliberations. they might have another question or a verdict soon. we'll find out. let me ask you, duncan, about the counts. there are 34 counts and i've got a trusty graphic in front of me. invoices, vouchers and checks: there were a couple of checks not signed by donald trump and the invoices made by michael cohen. in talking to people and looking over the prosecution's argument, the question that many have is did the prosecution, say they were able to prove the other stuff, did they prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump caused michael cohen to create a false invoice? could that be some of the counts that donald trump perhaps, it's more easy to find him not guilty for? >> that's one of the probably weakness areas of the prosecution's case, this notion of whether donald trump caused the false filings, even though it's sort of the boring part of the case that no one is focusing on. it's the sexier part of the case with hush money payments but the notion of cause was something that the parties were fighting about with the jury instructions and the prosecution was asking for a very advanced sort of expansive definition of the word cause that donald trump put in motion a set of events, said it was reasonably foreseeable that these business records would be falsified. but they wound up getting a much more narrow instruction that's called accomplice liability, that really requires the prosecution, if the jury is paying attention to it to show that he, you know, actually caused them these records to be filed so the question is, is there evidence that's different between the invoices and the checks? it's unclear is the real answer to the question. nobody knows. but i do think the jury could come away and say, yeah, there's more evidence. the invoices are different than the checks. at the end of the day, he signed these $35,000 checks to michael cohen, and that is the circumstantial evidence that he was aware of these false invoices because they were attached on to the checks that he was signing. >> he signed nine out of the 11 checks. the sum and substance, if you will, of today's read back other than the jury instructions they got key testimony from michael cohen and from david pecker. catherine, again, this is about the conspiracy. it's about the conversations at trump tower, how this alleged scheme came into being. does it matter that michael cohen and david pecker used some of the almost exact same language. we read it at the top, to describe that meeting. >> it matters because it makes particularly michael cohen more than anyone else credible. it also corroborates michael cohen, accomplice liability. accomplice in new york state. you cannot just find guilty on michael cohen's testimony. that is the law in new york, and you heard josh steinglass talking about the mountain of evidence, mountain of corroboration, he knew the judge was going to tell the jury that. what's also important about the read back for the prosecution, and they're not going to be talking saying this means we're going to win. i'm sure they're happy. it's their theory of the case that this conspiracy was hatched at the trump tower, august 2015, and donald trump was not a passive participant. he was the boss as michael cohen refers to him. >> testified to a direct conversation. >> it was donald trump who called david pecker, and david pecker had to come out of a meeting. it wasn't pecker calling trump, cohen calling david pecker, it was donald trump, the leader, you could say of the conspiracy. >> daniel? >> i think if i'm the prosecution, i'm very pleased with that read back because what you want to do in a summation and josh steinglass just did a masterful glass of this, you want to give the jury a road map to follow when they get into that jury room. for all the reasons we're talking about with jury instructions and complicated facts. here's what they have done, just as catherine said, they have framed the case with the first and the last witness about the most important corroboration that we have of michael cohen. and the fact that they use similar language, not exactly the same language, but similar, is critical. right? they didn't coordinate their system. they're talking about the same meeting, using the same words to describe the same set of facts why in the prosecution's view, because that's exactly what happened, and that's why you can believe michael cohen. >> and you have michael cohen who has a motive to get donald trump. he's aggravated with donald trump. he's not happy. you have david pecker who likes donald trump, and considers him a friend and in the prosecution's words, no reason to lie about donald trump. everyone, stick around, we're not going anywhere. still ahead, the view inside donald trump's holding room. it has been described as bleak, but today they got an update in that room. we'll tell you what it is. and if donald trump is found guilty, what happens immediately after the verdict is read? what we're told the court is preparing for. plus, justice alito is refusing to recuse, but there is a way to force the issue. the constitutional quirk, if you will, requiring recusal. congressman jamie raskin just proposed. we are back in 90 seconds. in 90. as the jury deliberates, the former president is stuck inside a waiting room at the courthouse, where a tv was set up today. jason miller, one of donald trump's senior campaign advisers wouldn't say what the former president was watching specifically when i asked him earlier today, but donald trump's truth social posts highlighting coverage on fox news and news max. do give us a clue. joining us from outside the courthouse is nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard. so vaughn, talk to me about how donald trump has been holding up during these deliberations? >> reporter: right, and two of his close surrogates, north dakota governor doug burgum, as well as alina habba, one of his legal advisers, they appeared on newsmax within about an hour of each other here. so we can make some assumptions about what channels he was likely watching here today, but he has also been posting a flurry of social media posts and for donald trump, this is a waiting game. he is forced to be here at the courthouse, waiting for the jury to deliberate, and ultimately make its verdict known. i asked alina habba what it is like inside of this room, where donald trump is holding with his son eric and don jr., and other allies, take a listen to what she's saying. how is president trump viewing what is taking place? what are the conversations in the side room looking like right now? >> i'm not going to speak to privileged information, obviously, but the president is doing well. i have said that time and time again. he truly is resilient, working and busy, and waiting like the rest of us. >> reporter: she also talked about the fact that the jury came back out to the judge merchan to have some of those different passages read out. and she says that they were, i believe that to be good news. the quote was she said i think the disagreement in jury is a good sign, generally speaking, the fact that they're asking those questions is a good sign. you don't want to bat in guilty verdicts, suggesting the jury could have if they wanted to walked into the deliberation room, and quickly decided amongst all 12 of them, he is guilty, come out and read the verdict. the inside of the room, with their defendants sitting there to suggest this is potentially good news that there is at least conversation happening about whether he's guilty or not. >> vaughn, this is at least the second time that governor doug burgum has showed up, is he now a leading contender for vice president? >> reporter: he still is actively the governor of north dakota but he has been spending quite a bit of time here in the country's biggest city here of new york. i think at this point in time, he has become a very close ally of donald trump's here, and as governor burgum is walking by, jason, feel free to have him stop by here. okay. we're on the list. doug burgum again walking by, maybe this time to fox news. we have been added to the list, katy. we'll see if he comes back. i know you had the chance to speak with him a moment yourself. the list of potential vp picks is quite smile at this point. governor burgum, ever since he was the first former 2024 rival of donald trump to endorse him there two weeks before the iowa caucus, he has been somebody who has been very much in his corner and a surrogate, including here in the middle of his criminal trial. >> i'm saying bring the governor over to vaughn's camera right now. we'll see if this message gets answered. vaughn hillyard, thank you so much. and what is the jury dealing with behind closed doors, and how are they going about lining up the complicated instructions from the judge with the evidence in front of them? msnbc's katie phang is here to explain what could jam deliberations up. and can supreme court justice samuel alito be forced to recuse himself from january 6th cases. what one house judiciary member says congress can do to require a recusal. to require a recusal. *trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up, i've got symptom relief. ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. and the majority of people experienced long-lasting remission at one year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ♪ now's the time to ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ ♪ learn how abbvie