America's Newsroom : FOXNEWSW : May 30, 2024 6:00am-7:00am PDT : Free Borrow & Streaming : Internet Archive (2024)

right to the courthouse. it is being led by cops. >> ainsley: the court day is 9:30 to 4:30 and a lunch break. jurors can extend the day to 6:00 p.m. >> lawrence: the judge will pick up on that last question about the jury instructions. the question is, is the judge going to go through all those instructions or a certain part? >> brian: we'll have a verdict the next time we're on the couch. i think it is happening today. i just think they're ready to go. i have a hunch. >> steve: go with his gut. >> brian: we'll hear about it and never forget where we were when we heard it. >> lawrence: the hope the jury follows the facts wherever it takes them. >> steve: that's what bill and dana will do for the next two hours. >> bill: good morning, america. we're on verdict watch continuing today.

deliberations about to resume in donald trump's criminal trial. what the jury is asking to hear for a second time will be revealed in a matter of moments. stay tuned for that. good morning. could be quite a day. we'll see. i'm bill hemmer in new york city. >> dana: i woke up ready to go. i'm dana perino and this is "america's newsroom." we have a lot to get to. former president trump heading downtown for day two of deliberations. trump and his team must remain at the courthouse as the jury decides whether to convict him of 34 counts of falsifying business records. >> bill: the former president's fate in the hands of 12 new yorkers. they deliberated 4 1/2 hours day one and ended the day with a few requests from the judge. >> dana: they want to rehear testimony from david pecker and michael cohen and then they also asked the judge to repeat his instructions. those things are expected to happen when court resumes less than 30 minutes from now. >> bill: our legal team is ready to go. the trio is standing by.

first eric shawn outside the courthouse as well. let's begin with you, eric, good morning. >> good morning, bill and dana. the jurors are starting at the very beginning with the first witness, david pecker. it seems they're trying to determine exactly what donald trump did. after 4 1/2 hours of testimony of deliberations yesterday, they asked for the first testimony about the key meeting between trump, pecker, the "national enquirer" publisher and trump's lawyer, michael cohen. the d.a. says at that sit-down that's where the alleged scheme started to protect trump's presidential campaign and illegally influence the 2016 presidential election. the meeting was held at trump tower on august 2, 0152, months after trump lost his election bid. he told the jury last month at that meeting donald trump and michael, they asked me what i

can do and what to do to help the campaign. i would be your eyes and ears. if i hear anything negative about yourself or anything about women selling stories, i would notify michael cohen. cohen's testimony three weeks later backed up pecker's testimony. what he said was that he would keep an eye out for anything negative about mr. trump and that he would be able to help us. cohen also said trump told pecker directly this, the two of you should work together and anything negative that comes, you let michael know. he will handle it. the jury will also hear the phone call that trump -- about the phone call that trump had with pecker about buying mcdougal's story with nearly a year long affair with trump. pecker told trump he should buy the story so it wouldn't get out. what's so striking and notable about the requests, the jury wants to try to find out exactly the testimony concerning the former president's alleged role

in this. what exactly did he do? the fact that at that trump tower meeting he allegedly told pecker and cohen to work together and in that phone call with pecker he allegedly asked him about buying mcdougal's story and part of what they will be parsing through in terms of the facts of this case. we'll see more when they start reading the read back later on this morning. >> bill: thanks for teeing it up. >> dana: want to bring in andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney, shannon bream, chief legal correspondent and trey gowdy former federal prosecutor. fresh they are. let's go ladies first with your thoughts, shannon, this morning as we get ready and president trump is on his way down. how do you wake up thinking? >> when you think about what the jury asked to hear reread back and again we've talked about it.

if one or multiple jurors want it. it is taking a long time. a couple of hours yesterday. they didn't get to hear it. they can hear it this morning. the judge wanted that fresh along with the jury instructions. do they want the whole thing? it was 55 pages long or is there something specific they want the judge to tell them about with respect to the law? that could be very telling to us if they want another definition or something clarified for them. it could they will us a lot where the deliberations are going. one of the things for the defense is if a payment is made and could have been made absent the candidacy it doesn't draw this into potentially an election law situation. if the trump team could successfully convince the jurors this payment would have been paid any way because president trump didn't want anyone to hear about it that's the good instruction for the defense. we'll see what instruction the

jury wanted to hear. >> this is a quote from the judge's jury instruction. if the payment would have been made in the absence of the candidacy the payment should not be treated as a contribution. the reason that could be important is because didn't pecker say that they did deals long before stormy daniels and karen mcdougal and his candidacy to be the republican nominee? >> well, they did say that, bill. but i have to say i think that's an insidious instruction in this sense. this test of whether something would have been a campaign expense or an expense that qualifies under fica as a campaign expense irrespective whether the campaign existed should have been designed to have brad smith come in and explain to the jury what the concept of a campaign

expenditure is. the jury didn't hear that testimony. smith would have explained to them that if you have like a non-disclosure agreement like you have in this context, the fact that stormy daniels was able to use the campaign to put pressure on trump because he happened to be a candidate didn't make the nda a campaign expense. she could have asserted pressure on him over his fear of embarrassing his family, over maybe blowing up a big tv deal, a big real estate deal. the jury didn't get that testimony. here is what the jury got. michael cohen was asked by the prosecutors if it hadn't been for the 2016 election, would you have paid stormy daniels? he said no. the jury thinks that instruction means that testimony from cohen, that if there hadn't been the campaign he wouldn't have paid it.

so they will think it is a campaign expenditure. that instruction is designed to be explained by somebody who knows what he is talking about about campaign law and they didn't get to hear that in this case. >> bill: the president has arrived and we saw him a moment ago. eric trump is there. we did not get a list of those who would be in court today. todd blanche, his attorney, boris epstein. jason miller, we see him as well and others, maybe carolyn leavitt in the green top. his coms director. the regular group right now. >> dana: can i put up call for number three. the judge's jury instruction has me the most confused and as people settled in was so confusing. unanimity. he says although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any

person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. what is he talking about? >> trey gowdy. >> yeah, yes, ma'am, i lost you for a second but got the gist of your question. you have to be unanimous in your lack of unanimity. i've never seen that in a criminal case before. this is to me a due process violation to say that extra crime is like a buffet, like going to the golden corral, pick what you want it to be. andy and shannon and i were debating does it have to be one of the three things that judge laid out? can it be a crime in north dakota that nobody has thought about? it is bizarre. i've never seen it before. with respect to jury instructions and these

questions, dana, what the lawyers are looking for is hope. i went back and reread this last night as both the prosecutor and defense attorney. what do i hope the jury wants to get from this? there is frankly something for both sides in the testimony they want replayed. i think there is a short story, the incident at the bridge where you were hopeful the hope will break and you live. that's what lawyers are doing now. they are hoping the jury wants to hear the good part for them. >> bill: all right. we're watching the room now. the 15th floor of the supreme court building in new york and the president will be walking through those doors in a matter of minutes and we'll bring you his pre-court comments in moments. stand by for that. shannon, here is another one for you. i think this goes to michael cohen, all right, number two. if you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness's entire

testimony. or you may disregard so much of it as you find untruthful and accept what you found truthful and accurate. this is why you guys go to law school for years. you know, convert that into english for all of us. basically if the jury comes back today and they say we want to know the part that deals with michael cohen from the judge, that might be one of the clues that trey gowdy is talking about there. that would fit in that category, i believe. >> it could be. remember, the prosecution told those jurors you don't have to rely on michael cohen. we have all kinds of mountains of other evidence. we didn't see it. we saw other testimony. i would not say mountains of other corroborating evidence. everybody knows cohen is the key, heart and lynch pin to the case. when there was testimony from him and others that he lied to his wife, his kids, his banker,

state and federal judges, to congress, both houses of congress, these are things that he has admitted to and been caught doing. so the jury has got to weigh out what they want to take from him if anything. those instructions mean you can completely disregard him. if he isn't a good, credible witness or parts of what he was saying was the truth you can consider those. how they feel about michael cohen and his credibility is key to this whole thing. >> dana: last night from president trump left court he talked about key witnesses who were not called. let's listen to him here. >> a lot of key witnesses were not called. look at the list. look at the players. you know -- you can take five or six of them. why didn't they call those witnesses? they would have been on our side. and it's a shame. in particular one witness who is now suffering greatly because of what is happening because of the

viciousness of these thugs. they are vicious people what they've done to that person. you know who i am talking about. they didn't call him as a witness. >> dana: talking about the former cfo for the corporation andrew weisselberg at ryker's right now. still a conversation and controversy about that decision. i'm wondering how you think about it before we see president trump hopefully give comments before court today. >> you know, dana, trey and i were looking this morning for the standard uncalled witness charge that judges usually give in a case like this and it is not in the jury instructions. we wanted to make sure. here is my theory for what it's worth, if weisselberg had helpful testimony to give for allen bragg, he would be here. he would have been taken from ryker's and brought to testify. the only person -- what the state tried to suggest was that weisselberg was being kept off

the stamp by trump because he had a severance agreement with a condition that requires him not to take positions against trump. but the agreement itself explicit says if you get subpoenaed by a court you have to testify and come to testify. the reason he didn't take the stand had nothing to do with trump. the reason he didn't take the stand was because bragg wouldn't immunize him and trump can't call him because weisselberg is afraid that if he testifies favorably to trump, bragg will indict him again for perjury. the only person who could have gotten weisselberg here to testify is bragg. the prosecutor is the only one who can immunize a witness and he could have come in and given his version of events. you can be sure, if his version of events backed up cohen, he would be here. >> bill: i think turley yesterday said he is getting vertigo from this. i want our viewers to know the three of you and turley and

lydia and kerri urbahn are on an email chain throughout the day and reading hundreds of emails from you guys. we're not trained-in-law and we are confused. i can't imagine how viewers are feeling at home. i have no clue as to where the jury is on this. we're watching that door. we'll hear from the former president in a matter of moments. stand by. terrific work down there. there must be an app for this somewhere. take it from legal talk to plain english. >> president biden: trump continues to lie that black unemployment was at a record low. that happened on my watch and we'll keep it going. >> bill: trump awaits his fate and president joe biden on the trail trying to win over african-american voters. we'll take you back to that. >> dana: lets than an hour away

whether learning former president trump is immune from prosecution from another case. we wait to see whether trump speaks before going into court. we'll be right back. (thinking: eddie, no frasier, frank... frank?) fred! how are you?! fred... fuel up to 7 brain health indicators, including your memory. join the neuriva brain health challenge. (restaurant noise) [announcer] introducing allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. allison!

over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. my daughter is mila. she is 19 months old. she is a little ray of sunshine. one of the happiest babies you'll probably ever meet. children with down syndrome typically have a higher risk

for developing acute myeloid leukemia or just leukemia in general. and here we are. saint jude children's research hospital works day after day to find cures and save the lives of children with cancer and other life threatening diseases. she was referred to saint jude at 11 months. they knew what to do as soon as they got her diagnosis. they already had her treatment plan drawn out and they were like, this is what we're going to do. this is how long it's going to take. this is how long in between. this place is like a family to us now. like, i can't say enough how grateful we are to be here.

answer but i am gagged but i can't talk about this ridiculous case hurting our country so badly. some of the reviews from yesterday are -- everyone is against this case. i haven't seen one legal scholar or expert in the law saying that this case should have been brought. it should not have been filed. it should have been filed seven years ago. it's seven years old. federal elections turned it down. southern district turned it down. bragg turned it down and rejove nighted it when i was running for office. at the request of biden. the editors of the national review say acquit trump. bragg failed to prove his charges. totally failed. gregg jarrett, who exactly was defrauded? voters who had already voted. they already voted. all of this stuff came in after

the election. then you say what about hillary with the dossier, what about all the other things that go? this is nothing. this is nothing. what about all of the corruption, the voter fraud that you've seen over the last year on behalf of the democrat and nobody talks about it. this is ridiculous. this is called running for office. gregg jarrett, the government, which received full payment on all taxable income. the government, by the way, received full payment. taxes were paid in full. they may comment on that. even if the taxes were paid in full the federal elections commission concluded the money paid did not constitute a campaign contribution under the law. remember, this judge wouldn't allow it. he is a very conflicted judge. you don't want to cover about what the conflict was, i'm not allowed to talk about it because

of a gag order. what stuff does he really not want to talk about? there was no fraud, no conspiracy. without a primary crime there can be no secondary crime. weaponizing statutes. no law has been broken. that was gregg jarrett. another legal analyst for cnn. the crime is not easy to explain or to understand. it is just not understandable. in other words, there is no crime. this is cnn. kathryn christian from msnbc, legal analyst. it is difficult because it is a very nuanced argument. it has never been prosecuted before. this is an argument that has never been prosecuted before. hopefully it will never be prosecuted again. andy mccarthy, this is anything

but standard. it is the opposite of standard. the idea they don't have to agree on what the other crime is. we spent six weeks wondering what is the other crime? what is the other crime? and at the end the thud we get is this. there are three or four of them and you can pick one or the other and they don't have to agree on anything. what he is saying it is so corrupt nobody has heard of a thing like this. you pick them and you don't have to be -- even though in a criminal case you don't have to be unanimous. give a couple of votes. the judge unfortunately is corrupt. judge jeanine pirro, no one has heard of this. it is like there is a, b, or c. this is a kangaroo court. unheard of. never seen anything like it. i've done it for 32 years. i'm a state prosecutor so i know

what i'm talking about. i'm not a federal judge i'm a county judge just like merchan. this is new york law and this -- he is 100% wrong. he is wrong is what jeanine pirro, very smart woman. jonathan turley, this is becoming a game on where is the crime? smart guy, where is the crime? mike davis, the u.s. would sanction any country for doing this. i think that's good. i think that's good. steve hilton, seems every day the proceedings go on, the judge and prosecutor go out of their way to prove trump's point. i guess they are proving my point. that's why i write some of these things that are very sad. mark levin, this stall inist-like case has prevented president trump running for office. has prevented him from

he has made his point again. read off a lot of analysis. some that we have heard and some on other cable stations saying that this is not right. it is not wrong and it is confusing and we want to bring in brit hume. legal analyst. saw you last night on special report and great to have you here. it feels like an historic and weighty day but feels like we're waiting for some sort of clarification as to what the charges are, what the jury instructions are. it appears that the jury is asking the judge for the same thing. >> i agree, dana. the one thing about this exotic case and exotic theories on which it is based, they are hard to understand and when we get to the point where the judge is giving the jurors a menu of choices as to which underlying crime they may find present here, you can understand why, as you pointed out, the jurors seem

confused enough to be asking for further instructions on this. and that's true of these jurors. one can only imagine how difficult it is for people out across the country wondering why the former president of the united states is being prosecuted in a case that they could barely, if at all, understand. >> bill: so we're three minutes away from the commencement of day two, britt. we'll get the emails flying in here shortly and we'll pass the information to our viewers, maria is back in the courtroom and so is jonathan turley inside so we have great value to us. meanwhile the sitting president, joe biden, went back to delaware after being in philadelphia yesterday. this one comment is getting a lot of play. he was there to speak to a largely african-american audience and said this in philadelphia.

>> president biden: let me ask you what do you think he would have done on january 6th if black americans had stormed the capitol? i don't think he would be talking about pardons. it's the same guy who wanted to tear gas you as you peacefully protested george floyd's murder. >> i don't know who the folks are behind him. from what i read i think there were 37 or 40 school children who were present for that. just with context, britt, in philadelphia around that time they had an iconic statue of a former mayor defaced. they had demonstrators on top of the subway entrance. at least a dozen store fronts looted or defaced. they had the philadelphia police department vehicle set on fire in that area. a state police cruiser as well from pennsylvania. you had a starbucks seen engulfed in flames and this is why you have police to respond

to incidents like this. i just don't know how you take that in from yesterday. >> well, not to mention the violence that was involved in the protests all across the country and the famous scenes of certain organizations standing in front of a fiery back drop talking about how mostly peaceful they were. they were in part peaceful but quite violent. i don't think it was such a terrible idea with the violence going on to use tear gas to disburse the crowds. biden is often doing that. he told black people romney or somebody wanted to put them all back in chains. this is the level of exaggeration to which he is often subject and i must say, i'm not sure how effective that pitch would be to an audience out there of black voters who have begun to drift away from

biden. make no mistake about this, trump won't win the black vote but if he wins enough of it to deny biden the overwhelming majority he needs in the black community to win the election, it will real seriously dent biden's chances. biden has work to do in the black community. i'm not sure what he was saying yesterday would help him do it very much. >> dana: can i get one comment from you? mark halperin is reporting this morning from people he had talked to in the past little while who have come to him saying that they are concerned about the well-being of joe biden and that what people are seeing with their own eyes is of concern to them. sort of raising the alarm here. are you hearing anything similar or could you comment on that as we're just about a month away from the debate? >> everywhere i go, i talk to

people and i don't hear anybody saying that joe biden is fit to be president again. everybody is dismayed at his deterioration and obvious senility that is deepening. i think that is the situation that is not going to get better and the issue of his age and condition is, i think, irreversible. >> dana: that reporting was interesting indeed this morning. great to have you. thanks. >> bill: thanks again. it is 9:30 here in new york. court is just about to get underway. here is the note if maria, the first of many today, right? prosecution walked in smiling. trump walked into the courtroom, mouthed to his son eric trump all right before tapping eric and taking his seat. so we await and we will bring you what the jury has asked for when we learn it right after this break. on medicare? have diabetes?

when enjoying life's special moments are you left guessing which foods are right for you? with the freestyle libre 3 system you'll know your glucose and where it's headed no fingersticks needed. freestyle libre 3 manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. so you can focus on those special moments. covered by medicare for more people managing diabetes with insulin. talk to your provider or visit freestylelibre.us/medicare

well done, viv. you got the presents, the balloons and the raptor cake. now, how about something to put a smile on your face? aspen dental provides complete, affordable care with dentists and labs in one place plus free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance... and 20% off treatment plans for everyone. quality care at a price worth celebrating. it's one more way aspen dental is in your corner.

>> bill: waiting on the judge. andy mccarthy and jeanine pirro in addition to shannon bream and trey gowdy. turley's first email in the courtroom. a hot ticket. trump is in the courtroom waiting for the judge. a moment turley say it it's nuts that the jury hasn't been given the instructions. they read out for 55 pages. new york law says you can't have them. if you want something read back you can do that. jeanine, what some of the jurors want read back, okay? a phone conversation with trump in june of 2016 that apparently had with david pecker. he was one of the first witnesses of the entire trial a month ago. a decision not to finalize

trump's payments to ami, pecker's company for karen mcdougal's life rights. he would buy the story forever. august 2015 trump tower meeting in addition, he said, to an august 2015 trump tower meeting with michael cohen. judge, can you size all that up and frame it to a way of the measure of import as you see it? >> it's very interesting. we all tea leaves differently. none of us really have an inside scoop into what is going on in the deliberation room. a couple of things going on there in my mind. one is that they are trying to figure out cash and kill and the truth is that i thought the defense made a pretty good argument that none of this stuff was catch and kill or they are trying to figure out what exactly trump had to do with the

agreement, if there was an agreement, and michael cohen's reliability or credibility. but here is the bottom line. they are honing in on cohen and pecker. now, each of those guys has been found one, i think cohen is guilty of a federal election campaign violation, pecker has an agreement with the feds to not be prosecuted for that. now, if you will notice, one of the charges includes in that column a, b, and c is a federal campaign violation. maybe they are looking into that or maybe it is something as simple as we're just trying to figure out what role donald trump had in any of this given the fact that there really is no one saying, other than michael cohen, that there was definitely an arrangement to catch and kill. >> dana: i can't imagine your frustration, the three of you, with all of your collective

experience looking at this, trey gowdy. what i guess it almost feels like choose your own adventure novels you read as a kid. how do you want it to end, jury? you get to decide. it seems wrong. >> yeah, it is not fair to the members of the jury. they needed much more guidance from this court. they actually need the instructions. look, in south carolina those instructions would be back in the room with the jury. the job of the jury is to apply the facts to the law. if you don't have the law back there, i'm not sure how you are able to do that. i will say this to judge jean in's points, there is something in that testimony for both sides. and we have no idea. keep in mind, donald trump wanted to protect his reputation well before he was ever a candidate for the presidency. so if he was just simply trying to protect his business reputation, that doesn't have anything to do with the fec. if he is trying to protect his marriage, that doesn't have

anything to do with the fec. the other point is the prosecution spent five hours telling us that michael cohen was not important. think about that. we will spend five hours telling you that our central witness is not an indispensable part of this case. he is. and his credibility is. i wonder if the jury is not trying to figure out can we really base a verdict on the word of michael cohen? >> here you go, ready? turley rights judge has taken the bench and jury asking for a further instruction. this relates to count one, andy, and how to deal with evidence and the inference to be drawn from evidence. the judge will read back pages seven through 35. that could take about 30 minutes, i do believe, based on yesterday's timing. andrew. >> well, it's a common sense

proposition that what the judge basically tells the jury is we proved facts in the courtroom in the testimony and you can make a decision on the basis of those facts and those things that you can rationally infer from the things that you hear. it sounds like a hyper technical legal concept. it is really not. it's the kind of common sense thing you go through in your own life. i don't know everything that is in one to 35. my recollection are like the preliminary instructions before you get into the nitty-gritty of what the charges are. can i just say to trey's point, and one of the things that really bothers me about how close to the vest this case has been played, you know, anything that went into the jury room when i was a prosecutor, i wanted to see it and i wanted to have some influence over what it looked like. why don't we have the verdict sheet?

i want to see what it is the jury has to fill out in order to decide this case. the other thing i'm trying to think of an analogy to this situation where, as dana pointed out, they can pick their own ending to this. if you had a racketeering case, what you would have to prove -- i've done a number of these. you have the prove two things. that there is a conspiracy, which they call an enterprise, and then that the enterprise committed at least two other crimes and you could find two or you could find ten or however many. but the jury would be given a verdict sheet where we would know yes, they found that there was an enterprise and then they have to be unanimous on which crime they pick and they are told they need to be unanimous and we end up getting to know what it is that they say that the government has proved. i'm worried as trey pointed out, that we may have a situation

where they pick the ending that they want, as dana just said, and we don't know what the ending is. it may not be one of the three endings the judge floated out to them if we don't have a verdict sheet. >> it is complicated by the fact of the column a, b, c we talk about federal crimes, election and tax crimes over which a new york state court has 0 jurisdiction and new york state d.a. has no power to prosecute. if they are not required to identify which of those they are basing this second crime on that bootstraps and brings to life a dead misdemeanor you can't even appeal the issue. this is make believe. >> bill: you did law in new york, andy, so did you. you are all hung up on the jury instructions and why they don't have a copy or we don't have a copy. andy or jeanine. >> that's new york law. >> bill: what's the logic under

new york law not to allow jury instructions to be given in the jury room? >> look, i don't know what the logic is behind it but it is the law in new york. they cannot have the jury instructions. i think what they want is for the judge to be explaining, as i did to jurors when they would come back on an issue. normally it is not a generic question which gives you -- the judge the power to read page 7-35, which is a lot. it is more specific as it relates to this concept, judge, can you repeat what the instructions are. they don't want -- maybe lawyers in the jury room saying i know what that means. only the judge knows what that means. the problem here is that you've got all kinds of issues over which new york state has no jurisdiction and if there is a verdict we can't even identify the issues. >> bill: stand by. we are getting a little more. before we do that we want to get

to jacque heinrich at the white house. >> dana: do we have you, miss jacque? let's pull her up here. there you are. i couldn't remember where you were but there you are at the white house on the north lawn. >> yeah, just got back, guys, following the president. he is in delaware today. today is the ninth anniversary of beau biden's death. today they went to the church where he is buried to pay their respects and follows a visit the president made to beau's widow, who is also hunter's ex-girlfriend and she is expected to testify in his trial next week. >> she disposed of a gun that hunter is accused of buying illegally. president biden was at her house. >> he visited her days before the anniversary of the passing of his son and she is family. she was married to his late son

and i think that is something also to mention as you are asking your question to me. >> they did not talk about her testimony? >> this was not about that. >> the trial is expected to publicize some unsavory and embarrassing details the famously private first family would prefer not to dwell on. prosecutors plan to go over money hunter allegedly spent on various women. pictures and videos of hunter smoking crack cocaine. text messages between family members and tax documents from london roberts, a woman who hunter initially denied fathering a child with. roberts might testify along with hallie biden and hunter's ex-wife. unlikely the biden campaign will choose again to hold a press conference outside the courthouse as they did with trump. >> news media has been incessantly posted there day in and day out for weeks. when you have one thing like the trial taking up a lot of oxygen

you have to use every tool at your disposal to break through that clutter and communicate your message to the electorate. >> anything could happen. campaign headquarters is a half mile away from courthouse. >> dana: we're waiting for the president to get in or out of the motorcade. may be about to take off. we'll have more on that. >> bill: a little bit here. not quite minutia but let the audience decide. 9:32 a.m. the jury sent another note to the judge. it appears they will read pages 7-35, which there are 55 total pages for jury instructions and the jury also asked for headphones for use with the laptop, the jurors are allowed two laptops during deliberations and can use them to look at the state's exhibits if they so choose brought up over the past month that could come in handy

if you want to recall something. i've been in the courtroom and super fine print. you will need some really good glasses to blow up that sucker. >> dana: hope they downloaded the update. >> bill: one more thing. the judge is allowed the provide headphones or a speaker so all jurors can listen at the same time. so that is your up to date update. >> dana: we're on the case as we get more information from inside the jury room. the jury is asking judge for a little more information and we'll be right back. start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand.

♪ limu emu... ♪ and doug. (bell ringing) limu, someone needs to customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah. (elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪

♪ liberty. ♪ with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles. mountain climbing tina at a cabin. or tree climbing tina at a beach resort. nice! booking.com booking.yeah. using the finest materials, like indulgent memory foam, and ultra-conforming inner-springs, for a beautiful mattress, and indescribable comfort. save up to $800 on select adjustable mattress sets at stearnsandfoster.com

life's daily battles are not meant to be fought alone. - we're not powerless. so long as we don't lose sight of what's important. don't be afraid to seize that moment to talk to your friends. - cloud, you okay? because checking in on a friend can create a safe space. - the first step on our new journey. you coming? reach out to a friend about their mental health. seize the awkward. it's totally worth it.

>> dana: we're back and waiting a verdict and how an appeals process would unfold if donald trump would be found guilty. cb cotton breaks it down for us. the jury is there to hear instructions first. they asked for two things. want to hear instructions and testimony of pecker and cohen. but the instructions are going to come first. that's the first order of business. cb cotton, are you there? >> i'm here. there is a lot of minutia in this case. donald trump would have 30 days to file an appeal. legal experts tell us his team would likely waste no time in filing one. the appeal would go first to new york's appellate division where

trump's legal team likely request a stay of any sentence such as jail time until the appeals process plays out. it would be entirely up to an appellate judge to decide whether that request is granted. now as for the grounds which trump's team could appeal to have a possible conviction overturned, one of the theories that has been discussed at length by fox legal experts is for trump's lawyers to argue that testimony from adult film star stormy daniel was prejudicial. they said her talking about -- during daniels testimony the lawyers called twice for a mistrial but denied by judge merchan. trump's lawyers may try to seek an appeal on the grounds of the novel legal strategy used by prosecutors in this case. once again trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records and dana this charge is typically a misdemeanor under

new york state law. prosecutors in this case say the records covered up a second crime. the violation of a state election law which forbids a conspiracy to aid an election by unlawful means. this appeals process could take months or even longer. so it is likely not to be completed before the november election. and dana, just last week the new york appellate division upheld judge merchan's decision to not recuse himself from this case. so a lot more to watch now especially with the jury. back to you. >> dana: thank you. >> bill: one more issue for you. andrew cherkasky joins us on set here. good morning to you. right now the judge welcomed the jurors back in the room. reread two notes from yesterday. they have a third note earlier today that hasn't been spelled out but we'll try to find out what it is. the judge tells the jurors they can either have headphones or speakers, the choice is yours. so we will see what they decide. he asked the jurors if they want

the instructions first or testimony. the foreman says the instructions and start reading on page six and continue through page 35 and right now that is what is happening inside the courtroom. this should take probably 30 minutes, i would guess. >> i think so. we heard the instructions go for almost 90 minutes yesterday. one of the notes this morning wanted a read back of the instructions dealing with circ*mstantial evidence, something about -- that instruction talks about the idea suppose you go to bed one night and it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning and you look out the window and don't see rain but see the street and sidewalk are wet. they are grappling how to deal with these circ*mstantial or inference-based. >> dana: what is an example from the testimony that was circ*mstantial? >> it is not exactly clear. they have us going back to that initial meeting with pecker, cohen and donald trump. i would assume they are trying

to corroborate what michael cohen is saying with what david pecker said and perhaps looking at how they can draw inferences from that. we're digging deep into what the jury is thinking and i have a strict rule of not reading the jury. we're doing it anyway. i think they could be find of going in all sorts of directions and it could be just one juror asking this. bottom line it means that there is some division back there. some people are seeings it one way, perhaps for the prosecution, some people for the defense and now they want to come back and hear more about it. >> bill: turley writes the instructions include a warning that -- i'm reading it cold. i will try, while pecker's non-prosecution agreement may not be used to infer guilt by trump or barring inference from cohen's plea to establish the context of the facts. turley's evaluation. a good thing for the defense to

have reread to the jury. not clear if it's an issue that led to the read back request. if you were sitting in that courtroom would you interpret it that way? >> they want more information. the judge is giving them the information they are asking for. this instruction helps put into a box that they can't make those inferences about david pecker or cohen's various deals and the guilt that is associated with it. the issue that i'm focused in on is this all seems to deal with the third element of the offenses that are brought here, there are three major elements. the first is that the entry into business records was wrong or incorrect. second it was fraudulent with intent to deceive. the third being the escalating charge of the offense that turns it into a felony with three additional prongs that don't have to be yoon on mouse. that deals with the federal

election campaign finance violations. one of those three additional prongs. so it's kind of confusing that they are there. perhaps they are stuck in the weeds where the prosecutors focused their closing arguments. i would want them on the baseline question, the bottom element of was this, in fact, wrong to put legal expenses in there. if that's not an issue all the rest of the elements are no problem. >> bill: pecker testified they were doing deals before 2015, did he not? >> that's my recollection. >> bill: why we read this portion an hour ago whether or not it was connected to any sort of campaign. >> dana: maybe that's what the jury is asking perhaps. >> bill: you think about trump's wealth, how much did $130,000 mean to him? >> right. when you think about that instructions about irrespective. would he have done it irrespective of the campaign. not that he would have done it on any random tuesday but when he had a spike in his celebrity, would he have perhaps come forward? le

tv

Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino cover current events happening around the nation and the world; guests pertinent to the news topics are interviewed and viewer emails are also answered by the anchors and guests.

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Trump 18, Pecker 15, New York 14, Michael Cohen 14, Biden 13, Us 9, Donald Trump 8, David Pecker 5, Turley 5, Weisselberg 4, Joe Biden 4, Otezla 4, Hunter 4, Philadelphia 4, Jeanine Pirro 3, Merchan 3, Gregg Jarrett 3, Bragg 3, Daniels 3, Andy Mccarthy 3

Notes

This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code).

info Stream Only