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!

good to be with you. i'm katy tur alongside my colleagues, andrea mitchell and chris jansing. what's happening right now in donald trump's hush money trial could determine how it all ends. a legal conference between judge merchan, prosecutors, and attorneys for donald trump to determine the charges the jury can consider. >> and there aren't any fireworks to note inside the courtroom right now, no fireworks, but really important conversations, arguments with the conference that's highly sequential, there's gamesmanship at play on both sides. >> this is the final phase of the proceedings, right, before closing arguments begin next week. and jurors now have an extra-long weekend. actually, they have a full week to absorb this week's testimony. they probably need it.

they're not going to be back in court until a week from today, next tuesday, when closing arguments will start. >> prosecutors rested their case against the former president earlier, after another less-explosive round of testimony from defense attorney, robert costello. more on that in a moment. and the cross-examination, which many have called, masterful. meaning, donald trump himself opted not to take the stand. here is what he said this morning about resting the case. >> we'll be resting pretty quickly, resting the case. i don't rest. i like to rest sometimes, but i don't need to rest. >> he will not be resting. nbc's yasmin vassoughian is outside the courthouse, also with us is fbi general counsel and former senior member of the mueller probe, andrew weismann, and former federal prosecutor paul butler. andrew, you were in the courtroom today, and you talked about susan hoffinger's cross. you said it was impressive.

andrew weismann, you watched it as well. give us a description of what she did with bob costello, and why it was potentially so effective. >> well, she would -- let's start with, she was helped by the conduct of the witness. that was a gift to her. because -- >> give us a word. yesterday, it seemed belligerent. what was it today? >> it was -- the word that the judge used, contemptuous. speaking out in court, in reaction to the judge's rulings. he's a witness. he is not the judge. saying, i strike -- i'm going -- strike that. as the judge said, that's what the judge does, not the witness. reacting, saying, geez, rolling his eyes, staring down the judge. all of that is beyond the pale, let alone for a lawyer. this is -- i mean, who knows better.

>> and today he seemed snippy and arrogant. >> yes. he also -- it will be interesting to see what some of the female jurors, and even male jurors, would have thought to what he said after he was chastised by the judge you know, outside the presence of the jury, when everyone came back, he looks at susan hoffinger who asked a question that i've been told everyone could hear and says, speak into the microphone. >> i heard it and i'm in the back of the courtroom. and that was striking. and he's also damaged by the facts of the case, because they had all of these e-mails. this is a man who loved to write e-mails and he loved to use profanity in the e-mails. he spoke contemptly. he called his client, michael cohen, an a-hole, that's the way he phrased it in this email. and he laid out the conspiracy, you know, is this guy nuts, you know, taking on the man -- the most important man on the planet. the most powerful man --

>> so if you're showing this to your class at georgetown, what's the lesson to be learned? >> don't do this. >> in technical terms -- >> yeah, why was this witness called? he's got information about michael cohen, not donald trump. michael cohen is not on trial. the defense hoped that he would impeach the credibility of mr. cohen. i think he ended up enhancing -- remember, michael cohen testified that he didn't want this guy to be his lawyer, because he didn't trust him. after this performance my costello before the jury, that judgment has been confirmed. >> is that one of the problems -- and i guess maybe it goes away when you go into the jury room, but there is a sense often in the trial, and certainly in this trial, where it does seem like the person on the witness stand is the one who is on trial. >> well, just -- >> that's the job, right, on cross? >> to your question and to katie's question, the last witness the jury could find that

his e-mails or trade donald trump as a mob boss. the kind of e-mails that i saw are exactly what you see in a mob case, where this is underlings that the jury could find, who's trying to find out what the witness has. does he have information that could damage the boss and is he going to give it up? and who's he going to report that to? >> and parenthetically, i know they've been instructed and they will or they will not obey. we think that they will, because of the way people take judge mar merchan seriously and jurors do in general. they have a whole week. but what do you know, rudy giuliani will be reported on in the press, and it's not this case, but that he was ducking his subpoena, and he now has appeared on election interference case remotely, in arizona. so if it's somebody and their family is read something that says, hey, look at this about

rudy giuliani, and they're making the connection, oh, that rudy giuliani who was trying to pressure michael cohen in the cause that i'm deliberating on, because it's rudy giuliani is right there, you know, as the shadow figure, next to robert costello on the witness stand. he's now part of this case. >> yeah. >> they're not violating any rules. >> even if you intend, in her scenario, even if you intend as a juror to follow the judge's instructions, it's hard today. 20 years ago, 30 years ago, not so hard. but now? even with just pop-ups on news headlines. >> you know, the one thing i'll say having sat on a jury, and obviously been a lawyer in cases, is even if there's stuff that comes in through osmosis and you can't get rid of it, because you've seen something, i think jurors really take their obligations seriously. i can't say it's 100% of the time. i think people rise to the

occasion and, you know, when i was on a jury, we did not deliberate until we were told we could deliberate. we only talked about what happened in court. i mean, it was just -- it was what you wanted to be. so i do think that you could see that. >> all right, so, back inside the courtroom. they're talking about the enhanced misdemeanor, the felony, the intent here. did donald trump intend to do something more than falsify documents. did he intend to break a bigger law? a federal law? they're arguing a state law and the lawyers are going back and forth with this. earlier, we were talking about intent that was argued in the courtroom, what this moment was like in 2016. this was the -- you know, the last days of the election. they were losing suburban women. the polls showed him not doing well. they needed to make sure that something else beyond the "access hollywood" tape did not come out. and so, coangelo, the prosecution, wants to say it's

very important for the court to instruct the jury on the defendant himself that he did not enter the accounting records. the instruction includes, and this is a critical concept, it has gone from case law to the four cases we've mentioned in the footnote. there's no disagreement beyond the standard that causing false entries occurred, when falsification of those entries. he says, each of these cases cited by the government they don't support this. coangelo says he wants to make two more points on this. they're arguing that the intent here is -- should be part of the jury instruction. that donald trump's mens rea, i'm using the term right, andrew weismann -- >> yes, you are. >> -- so happy for myself -- will explain why it's going to be so crucial to get the intent instruction right for the prosecution. >> so, maybe, i'm going to give an example of sort of big picture, what's going on here.

the jury has to decide the facts, but against what standard. they need to know, what do i need to find in order for the defendant to be guilty. and if it hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant is not guilty. let's just take the whole, is it for melania, or is it for the campaign? the judge could say, here's the law. you have to find 100% of donald trump's intent, his mens rea has to be the cain. and he could instruct the jury that way. he could also say, you know what, only 1% has to -- as long as 1% is for the campaign, that's enough. or he could say, you know what, you have to find that a significant purpose was for the campaign. or, but for -- i mean, also, to standards in between 100 and 1. and that instruction to the jury is so important.

if you're a jury, you're saying, tell me what would satisfy the case here. >> and this is going to be much clearer in the jury instructions than it currently is in the arguments. these are bunch of very well-educated lawyers who are arguing highly specific legal terms, they're citing cases and following the document. if you don't have a law degree and you haven't been doing this day in and day out, is difficult. >> you know what i really like. the judge says, i'm going to stick to the standard jury instructions. he is focused on what can be understandable to the jury. and i love it here, he says, i have tried to -- how do you pronounce this word, i've tried to say it a hundred times, ilya, merchan spells it and says, charity. let's strike that. so then he goes on to the definition of intent. he's trying boil it down. >> to make it clear to the jury. >> this is where the judge is needed desperately, right? >> so jury instructions are often where judges are reversed in the event that there's a conviction. why is that? because the judge has to explain

very complicated legalese in a way that are non-lawyer can understand it. and so, intent is the word he will use rather than mens rea, and in this case, the government will have to have proven that donald trump intended that these false business records would aid his campaign. that doesn't have to be his only intent. if he was also thinking about melania, that's okay. but as long as part of the intent, one of the reasons was that he wanted to advance his campaign, then the jury will hopefully, according to the prosecution, find that. so every crime has an intent, and a causeuation, which katie mentioned earlier, is part of the act that the government has to prove. so donald trump has to either have made false business records or called caused false business records to be made. so one of the things they're arguing about now is what does "cause" mean. what does that act mean? and new york case law says that

you don't have to actually order it, as long as it's a reasonable consequence of your actions that this other person will do the thing that counts as cause. >> in this case, it's a reasonable conclusion that allen weisselberg would know that donald trump wanted him to make those notions on that document. they have to prove that. the jurors have to accept that. in all the other testimony, that's the way this organization worked. donald trump was at the head of it, it was a family operation. weisselberg had been there since his father, he was the cfo, he would write those things because he knew donald trump wanted. it >> another way to think about it, if you're spending $420,000 and grossed it up by paying twice the amount, it means that it's not a reimbursement, it's going to be recorded as income. and you would think it's reasonably foreseeable if the whole scheme so to have it be declared as the disguise as income, that the books and records of your company will reflect that. otherwise, the scheme isn't going to work. >> he was already in the top tax

bracket. don't go anywhere. msnbc's special coverage of donald trump's hush money trial continues and we're continuing to watch what's happening -- >> he wasn't in the top tax bracket, by the way. >> they said he was. n the top t bracket, by the way. >> they said he was.

(bell ringing) someone needs to customize and save hundreds with liberty mutual! (inaudible sounds) (elevator doors opening) wait, there's an elevator? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ we love being outside, but the sun makes our deck and patio too hot to enjoy. now thanks to our new sunsetter retractable awning, we can select full sun or instant shade in just 60 seconds. it's 20 degrees cooler under the sunsetter and we get instant protection from harmful uv rays and sun glare. for pricing starting at less than $1,000,

transform your outdoor living space into a shaded retreat your family will love! when you call, we'll rush you a special $200 discount certificate with your free awning idea kit! you'll get your sunsetter for as little as $799. but, this is a limited time offer! for over 20 years, sunsetter has been the bestselling retractable awning in america! call now for this free awning idea kit packed with great awning solutions that will let you enjoy your deck or patio much more often. plus, get this $200 discount certificate that will bring you your sunsetter for as little as $799. but this is a limited time offer. call now! sunsetters are backed with up to a 10-year limited warranty! more than 1 million families in america own and love their sunsetter. now, you too can discover why “life is better under a sunsetter...” it's like putting an extension on your home. and talk about options: choose motorized or manual and for just a little extra, add led lighting for evening enjoyment.

there are so many incredible styles to choose from in our free awning idea kit. get a custom-built awning, without the custom-built price! call now to get the whole sunsetter story. you'll get this free awning idea kit. plus, a $200 discount certificate and there's no obligation. with sunsetter, you'll create the ultimate outdoor living space. perfect for entertaining friends. call now for your free awning idea kit, with local dealer info and $200 discount certificate. “life is better under a sunsetter!”act now and save!

all right. i've got an admission. i got something wrong right before we went to break. you were talking about michael cohen, not donald trump. donald trump was not in the highest tax bracket, because often times he didn't pay any taxes. my bad. let's bring in criminal defense

attorney and msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos. danny, let's talk about what we're reading in this document, what's going on in this conference. do you see any wins here for the defense? >> i do see a couple. they're minor wins, from time to time. i mean, for example, i think pointing out -- and this may have gone in anyway with justice merchan, but pointing out the intent to defraud can be something other than it requires an intent to deprive someone of something. it's not just an intent to defraud out there in the ether. but even as i'm describing it, i'm reminding myself why my heart rate is rising listening to a discussion and read along with this charge conference. the charge conference for me is the most stressful part of the entire trial. and it's quietly so, because people don't really know about charging conferences. they know about opening statements and closing arguments and cross-examination. but this is quietly where the case can be made or lost. and it moves quickly.

and it's really -- it ends up being more of a philosophical discussion. as we're listening here, it's an argument about different arcane legal definitions. and if it moves too quickly, you'll decide on a jury instruction and think, oh, my god, did i just lose the case by not arguing that correctly. but never yet, it's a part of the trial that people never even think about. it might be doubly important in a case like this, where you're dealing with relatively novel legal concepts. and boy, it is a really, really challenging part of the trial, especially because usually, it's right before closing arguments, and you're thinking, boy, i would just love to be preparing my closing argument. but now you're locked in an hours-long debate over each and every word that goes in these jury instructions. it's hard for the lawyers to follow, let alone members of the public. >> danny, question here. when we hear judge merchan say, i'm going to do, not going to do that, but this is not binding. he and his clerk will spend the next couple of days going over

this and he'll come out with his instructions and he can change his mind, can he not? >> he has the final say, but if he says, i'm going to adopt the challenge suggested by the bench or stick with the jury instructions, that's his prerogative. but as paul pointed out, when it comes to appeals, jury instructions are the most often appealed issue. this argument, if the judge says on the record,ly include this as the defense suggested it, then that's what they're going to include. but it begs the question, why do we even have these pattern jury instructions. these standard instructions? because most judges will start out saying, hey, folks, just so you know, i usually stick to the jury instructions. and yet, they will agree to debate and listen to suggestions and change those jury instructions. it is really -- i mean, on some level, it is standardized, because many jurisdictions have these standard jury instructions, but to another

degree, it's kind of wide open. because if you're inviting debate about the words that go before a jury, it could be anything. and the judge, of course, has the final say, in the sense, for this trial, he doesn't have the final say once you go up on appeal, and then an appeals court takes a look at whether or not the jury instructions were proper. >> he did say hear at this hearing, on the record, i tend to stick to the standard instructions. those are smart people, they came up with them. but as you point out, they have to be tailored for this case, which is a novel case. >> yeah. >> we can go back in the courtroom just for one of our producers, who has a little color for us that the defendant, donald trump, appears more engaged this afternoon than at earlier points. he's been tapping blanch on the shoulder, pointing across the room, pursing his lips, whispering to nechlace. he is closing his united states intermittently before almost immediately resuming some type of activity. >> he's been looking through

papers and in front of a stack that includes printed pictures. we've talked about this. anybody who's been in the court has seen this, there's a woman sitting a couple of rows back from where donald trump is seated, she's got her computer out and compiling a number of photos and press clippings and to what just looks like an exceedingly long pdf file, just going through it. and then she's giving them to donald trump. it's part of what you're seeing him waive in front of the press in those brief moments when he's outside of court. and it appears this is what he could be looking at now. you say this is what any presidential candidate does. but this is what donald trump has always done in particular. he would send people press clippings of them, if he would read something in the press about somebody, and if he would like it, he would send it to them and sign it with his name in bold sharpie. >> with a sharpie. >> how much of a defense

lawyer's job is client management? >> it's a huge part. it's a huge part of it. >> are you going to say everything? >> if the client goes to trial. 90% of cases are resolved by plea bargains. and then client management isn't a big deal. what you tell your client is the judge is going to outline what you say you did. you just have to admit that you did it. 90% of criminal cases. so when there's actually a trial, client management is huge, but normally, it's not a big deal, because the client understands that you are the expert. you are the person who's keeping their butt possibly out of prison. so they want to listen to everything you have to say, not donald trump. >> i think donald trump gets a wrap for not listening to his lawyers. and we've seen evidence of that, obviously. but in this case in particular, who knows about bob, but the rest of the time, after the gag order violations a to the

beginning, he has, for trump, behaved himself more, in the courtroom, he hasn't had outbursts, and tell me if you disagree. he is obviously doing what he's going to do outside of the courthouse. he had blanche do the cross of michael cohen. blanche is not the biggest pit bull on his legal team. he's not the loudest voice on the legal team. he's not going to go out there and intimidate michael cohen. that was clearly something, i think, that was argued to donald trump. you want me to do this because you don't want me to put the jury off. am i wrong about that in my estimation? >> i do agree after the tenth finding of criminal contempt that it was better. >> i really don't mean that to sound the way it is, but i do think that he behaved himself better in the courtroom. but i do think that there was a lot that happened in court that doesn't make any sense if his

case were -- didn't have a political dimension. what i mean by that is we talking about putting costello on. that is -- i can't -- >> you think when this is already -- >> if susan nechlace was actually freed from attorney/client privilege, she's a very good defense lawyer, i can't imagine she would be like, that's a great idea. but here's another example other than costello, because the freshest in our mind. legally, it made no sense not to have a hard cross of david pecker and hope hicks. they had incredibly damaging information. and instead, the hard cross was stormy daniels. it is impossible for me to think with this array of three defense lawyers who are experienced, that they all said, you know what, what's going to be best for the criminal case? let's do a hard cross on a witness where it doesn't matter whether she's believed or not,

but let's not do a hard cross on david pecker and hope hicks. i'm just intuiting that has to be coming from donald trump. >> i think that's a really, really good point in terms of strategy. i think what i was trying to say, i remember the way he behaved during the fraud case, it was a bench trial, it was different. he was not keeping to himself, he was muttering, he was arguing with the judge, he wouldn't stay quiet. and the demeanor that he has inside the courtroom is noticeably different than what we saw during the engoron trial. >> does it also have to do with what he really cares about. the engoron trial dealt with his net worth, his organization, that got to his core of who he define himself. >> maybe. >> this was just about extramarital sex. >> this one is a criminal trial that could put him behind bars. >> in the middle of a campaign. >> he was really so absorbed in the other case. it just seemed to me -- >> well, his whole view of

himself, the legend that he's built -- >> is billionaire net worth, which "forbes" magazine every year said wasn't as high as he claimed. >> that brings me to former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade. bear with me for a second, because we've been talking about client management. we've also been talking about the color, that trump appears much more engaged this afternoon. he's been engaged with blanche, tapg him on the shoulder, pointing across the room, whispering to susan nechlace. take him out of it. is it your experience as it gets closer to the end of the trial, the tension in the room amps up? the stakes start to be felt more that it would not be unusual for any defendant at this point to be more engaged and to be more nervous knowing that judgment day is awfully close now. >> and the jury is not in the

room. >> yeah. >> yeah, i think so. these jury instructions are so critically important. it seems that, you know, based on what we're seeing coming out of the courtroom that the defense is trying to add elements to make it harder for the jury to convict and the prosecution is trying to come back to the standard jury instructions to keep those out. there's a lot at stake in these jury instructions. and i think donald trump understands that. you know, one of the things that actual impressed me during the case was the testimony of stormy daniels, where she testified about how donald trump was genuinely interested in the porn industry, about the business of it. explain to me how this works, explain to me how that works. i think he is possibly genuinely interested in this stage of the case. this is a really important strategic place in the trial. and the words that get used in the jury instructions can really make or break a case. the other thing that i have seen in my experience is, a judge is somewhat incentivized to call close calls in favor of the

defense. and that's because, if the prosecution wins the case and there is a conviction, there is an appeal and a review of the case. if on the other hand, the defense wins and there's an acquittal, there is no review of the case. there is no reversal. and so in some case, that conceals a judge's mistakes, because if he found in favor of the defense and the defense wins, there is no appeal from that case. so sometimes i've seen judges say to me, don't worry, i'm doing you a favor here. because this way, the conviction won't get reversed on appeal. and i would say to the judge, don't do me any favors, because i have to get a conviction first for there to be any appeal. i think donald trump is very engaged in this, because he understands the stakes at this point in the case. >> here's what bove is saying. what i would propose is to remove donald trump from the equation. the government doesn't have to establish this line in its entirety. the way the evidence came into

being in certain rooms, at certain times, in the same respect to pecker and weiselberg. bove says, it's extraordinarily important for the jury if it gets to the question as to whether it is a felony. judge merchan, the presence of a single crime does not constitute guilt. bove says, i don't think it accomplishes it for the purpose of a conspiracy obstruction charge, criminal conspiracy predicate here is distinct. judge merchan says, what's the harm in including it there? this section deals with conspiracy. why not include it there? and he also adds, it would mislead the jury, your honor, for two reasons. the defense himself -- the defendant himself doesn't even need to have committed the crime. it is sufficient if he sought to conceal the commission of someone else's crime. the second brief, your honor, is in the trial record. it just doesn't support an argument that extensive corroborating evidence -- this

is extraordinarily hard to follow. they keep putting us back in the document, and i keep getting lost. paul butler, can you please make sense of this for us. >> so, what the government has to prove is that trump knowingly made or caused to be made a false entry in the business records, and what this part goes to is that his intent was to commit or conceal another crime. so the other crime that the prosecutors are charging is this new york state election law, which says that you can't try to get your candidate to win by unlawful means. so unlawful means is where we get these tax charges and these federal and state campaign violations. so it's really three different elements. they're all a little bit complicated. >> oy vey. >> and at the end, the jury will use its common sense. i think one of the most important points to be made is, do you really think, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that

michael cohen would have spent $130,000 of his own money, if he wasn't darned sure that he was going to be reimbursed by donald trump? bam. >> is that the prosecution's anecdote to complexity? which is, common sense arguments. simple, straightforward. >> it's common sense. it's also witness testimony. and it's prosecution's favorite documents. documents don't lie. >> what about the lawyers on the jury, paul? is this a good thing or a bad thing? who does it benefit? >> katie, i never wanted lawyers on my jury when i was a prosecutor. we had two concerns. one is that they would have too high a standard about what reasonable doubt is. they would expect more proof than we thought was required. the other thing was, in d.c. at that point, lawyers -- the juris got to choose the foreperson. they voted. and if there was a lawyer on the jury, they would always make that person the foreperson. and then you would be concerned that the jurors would listen to

him or her rather than the judge. >> oh, gosh. so interesting. yasmin vassoughian is back with us. take us out of this extraordinarily complicated legalese document with terms that are going way over my head and zoom out and give us the bigger question here. >> reporter: gosh, katy, i feel so thankful as if you feel that i am able to do that for everybody that is watching. i too did not go to law school. i was in the courtroom for the first 30 minutes or so thinking, i should have gone to law school, because i have no idea what they're talking about, especially as they're going through these draft charges. by the way, you mentioned, we have all been following this every day, and yet, still, it is still so incredibly confusing. but to the point that paul was making, they're talking more about willful intend rather than just donald trump being a part of this criminal conspiracy, wanting that to be part of these charging instructions. whether or not that's going to be the case, merchan will decide

on it. it seems as if, by the way, they're getting to the end of going through these instructioned. they began about an hour and 15 minutes ago. seems as if they'll be wrapping that up soon. let me talk to you briefly about what i heard from donald trump at the beginning of this time. he was in the hallway just upstairs as i was waiting to go through security and about a hundred or so members of the press were held up behind the security barriers as the former president was having his press conference right outside the courtroom, as many of you have now seen at this point. in which he essentially said, this is incumbent upon the judge, right? it is up to the judge and his jury instructions as to whether or not he will be found guilty or not guilty. he is putting this all on the judge and these jury instructions that will eventually be given to this jury after summations on tuesday. so you think about kind of what the former president is setting up here, right, for when this decision finally comes down and who, in fact, he will be

pointing blame at. also, the surrogates, guys, i spoke to earlier today that we heard from, don jr. being one of them. by the way, this is the first time that he showed up in court in the last couple of weeks that we have been in trial, all pointing the finger at judge juan merchan as well. they're already trying to build a case against the judge right now, ahead of what will be these jury instructions. at the end of the day, the decision lies in the hands of this judge. one more thing, katie, that you mentioned, right? the lawyers on this jury, we've got two lawyers on this jury, right? and paul butler mentioned. i've heard this from many attorneys, as well. they don't necessarily like lawyers to be on this jury. but you think about how complicated these charges are. i wonder how the jury will actually be able to take in these charges, when hearing these jury instructions. maybe, and i pose this to lawyers on your panel as well. maybe here it will be helpful to have two lawyers on the jury to help walk through the for the rest of the jurors, what these actual instructions mean.

>> do you want to argue the other side of that? do you want lawyers on your jury? >> i generally didn't, mostly for the reason i thought they would not accept the law and apply it exactly as the judge instructs them. >> are you seeing something fascinating -- >> what about this issue of being unanimous. >> that's a really interesting issue. and i think this is one, by the way, that i can understand why all of you said, you know what, you might have been flirting with law school. if there's anything that made you not want to go to law school, it's this document. this is very much in the weeds. it's -- and it's very -- but here's something i think people can understand. we've been talking about how, for a misdemeanor to become a felony, there has to be an intent to further or conceal some other crime. and the state has said that they have proposed three other crimes that cause this to be a felony. the issue is just, the jury has

to be unanimous as to which one. and i think the law is clear that the answer to that is "no." that as long as the jury is unanimous that it is at least one, they don't all have to agree on which one it is. >> take a look at what the judge just said. >> but what you're asking me to do is change the law and i'm not going to do that. what's he talking about there? i'm speaking very slowly, so you can read the whole thing and then give us the context of it as well. >> because we're getting this in shorthand and it's changing a lot, it's unclear who he's exactly correcting that to. i think that -- he is very much like whatever the standard law is in new york law, he's gone with that. he is not trying to be a first on what the law is. he wants to play it safe in terms of making a ruling. and the state is saying, as long

as everyone agrees that there was at least one, but they don't have to agree on which one, and obviously, the defense is saying, no, it should be unanimous as to which one. and i'm just not clear yet where the judge is going to come out on that. >> let me just read a little bit of the information from our reporters. they said that merchan has just ruled that if the jurors find that trump made or caused to be made false business records in order to conceal conspiracy to promote trump's elections through unlawful means, the jurors can have different ideas about what those unlawful means are, which is what you were just saying. >> this is very prosecution friendly. again, this is a win for the government, because if all jurors had to agree on which one of these three crimes trump had the ability to conceal or commit, that would have been a problem. >> there's a shorthand for this in the law, which is methods and means are not something you nid to be unanimous on.

the elements of a crime are something that a jury has to be unanimous on. only on the key things, the act and the intent. >> let us let the document populate a little more, so we can understand it better and we can pick the brains of the experts. >> and sneak in some peanut m&ms. don't go anywhere, special coverage of donald trump's hush money trial and what's going on in this conference right now regarding jury instructions, in just a moment. don't go anywhere. instructions just a moment. don't go anywhere. l me about their frequent dry eyes, which may point to dry eye disease. millions of americans were estimated to have it. they've tried artificial tears again and again, but the relief is temporary. xiidra can provide lasting relief. xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. doctor: why wait?

ask your eye doctor about a 90-day prescription for xiidra today. so this is pickleball? it's basically tennis for babies, but for adults. it should be called wiffle tennis. pickle! yeah, aw! whoo! ♪♪ these guys are intense. we got nothing to worry about. with e*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? got him. good game. thanks for coming to our clinic, first one's free. (psst! psst!) ahhh! with flonase, allergies don't have to be scary. spray flonase sensimist daily for non-drowsy long lasting relief in a scent free, gentle mist. flonase all good. also, try our allergy headache and nighttime pills. hi. what's your name? this is our new friend. we'll talk about it later, ok? what does a cat need?

chewy's here. no, no, no, no. is that good? hey, wait! come back! is this normal? ask the chewy vet team. how much is too much catnip? for everything you need and everything you need to know. find it at chewy. these days everyone is staring at screens, and watching their spending. good vision is more important than ever, but so is saving. that's why america's best includes a free eye exam when you buy two pairs of glasses for just $79.95.

book an exam online today. wanna know a secret? with new secret outlast, you can almost miss the bus... but smell like you didn't. secret fights 99% of odor-causing bacteria. smell fresh for up to 72 hours. secret works! it's a crime to smell that good. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. it's odd how in an instant things can transform. slipping out of balance into freefall. i'm glad i found stability amidst it all.

gold. standing the test of time.

all right. so right before the jury instruction conference started, donald trump spoke to cameras before he headed back inside the courtroom. he, as you would expect, continued to rail against the case, judge merchan, he also criticized president biden for releasing oil from the strategic reserves. kind of a deviation from the day's news. and when he was asked by reporters multiple times why he himself did not testify after telling everybody that he wanted to, he didn't answer. joining us now, "new york times" reporter jeremy peters. so you know, we're all watching this, we're getting incredible reporting from inside the courtroom. we have world-class lawyers breaking it down for us. what -- if you are -- if you are not watching out and say, watching another outlet,

friendlier to donald trump -- >> by ashamed of yourselves. >> -- what are you getting, jeremy, if you're watching something else quality. >> well, all across conservative media, the facts of this case are being presented very, very differently. they're actually often an entirely different set of facts, different chunks of testimony, different moves by the judge. and what those all point toward is a seeming acquittal of donald trump. because in the conservative media, you know, on fox news, you know, what you're hearing is that this case is falling apart and that the prosecutors have not done their job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that trump paid this money to for political purposes to help him in the 2016 election. what he's hearing is that he's likely to get off.

and while that may seem like distorted journalism or very selective reading of the facts, it's important for trump politically, because if he is convicted, it allows him and his supporters to say, see, we knew this was rigged. all along, the fix was in for donald trump. and of course, that's the central theme to trump as a politician. they are out to get me and in turn, you, the trump voter. i'll give you an example of some of the things that you would be hearing throughout conservative media. one is, you know, attacks, constant attacks on the credibility of the judge. and they call him a democratic donor. they point out the fact that he gave, although this is rarely disclosed, $35 contribution to a democratic group in 2020. that's the extent of his involvement as a democratic

donor. you hear his daughter is a democratic political operative, so the implication is that the judge is corrupt and has it in for trump. you will also hear that the prosecution has not proven that trump paid this money for political purposes. that it could -- it's just not clear that he wasn't doing this to shield his family from knowing about his involvement with stormy daniels. and you know, you also hear a lot about -- sorry, go ahead, andrea. >> i was just saying, so they're inoculating, he's inoculating against a conviction? >> reporter: oh, yes, exactly. that's exactly right. and because it will all be -- if he is convicted, it will all be seen as the levers of government against him. and of course, you know, one of the things that conservative media also really focusing in on is michael cohen's testimony. and the way that has played out on the right is that his

testimony was an utter disaster, because he admitted to stealing from trump. he admitted to having a financial interest in the outcome of this case, because of his podcast and various other entrepreneurial endeavors that involve his time as a trump adviser. so they've really seeded the ground for, as you say, andrea, inoculating trump against conviction. >> but michael cohen also did say that it would be better for him financially if donald trump was acquitted, because he would have more to talk about. >> yeah. >> jeremy, did you read anything up in l the last couple of hours ago, when we knew for sure that donald trump was not going to take the stand, suggesting to conservative media that he should go out there and defend himself or seen anything since that decision, reacting to it in any way at all? >> well, this is such a common tactic of trump's, right? to claim that he wants to do something that is clearly

against his best interests. but sigh allows him to project this toughness, this sense of confidence that he's so incident. these charges are so pumped up, and weaponized against him that why wouldn't he put himself in the vulnerable position of having to face tough questioning from prosecutors. you know, he's -- this kind of talk, this overheated, over inflated rhetoric from trump is certainly nothing new. i don't know that anybody would -- a trump supporter surprised because defendants so rarely testify in their own cases. anybody who has seen a courtroom drama movie knows that. >> they are taking so you see the movement coing out of court for a few moments. the fact that he didn't testify, they are not supposed to draw any inference from that as a

jury, but in your experience dorks they sometimes? >> i don't know if jurors do. >> i i think a lot of times a juror might say i'm curious and wish he had, but they don't actually think that. they don't hold it against them. i do think one thing that i think people need to separate is that's inside courtroom there's a constitutional right not to testify inside that courtroom, that's the way that operates. we are not inside a courtroom. we are in the public. this is a court of of public opinion. did you have an agreement with david pecker to catch and kill and faumt, this is a friend of yours to to meant fake stories

is a legitimate question you'd think a candidate needs to answer. it doesn't have to be on the stand and no one is saying he doesn't have a right in the fifth amendment in the courtroom, but i think it's really important to separate that is and not get confused over the legitimate questions now as to those issues. >> here's the thing. the american public, by and large, there was a portion of the american public that does not demand that. i think even asking that question is evidence of bias. it's not fair to ask donald trump any questions about his motivations or of what he did or did not do. asking him that means you're out to get him. >> as a journalist, you'd think that's ridiculous. >> you ask tough questions of everybody. a regular person on the street, your job is to ask tough questions to get interesting answers. but beyond that, is it a problem that these cases, i know we

don't have cameras in court in new york. i know the o.j. simpson trial was a circus. this is the former president, who is running for president again, this is a serious case that the da alleges he interfered in the last election, the one that got him elected. is it a shame and potentially malfeasance for not to be cameras in the courtroom so the public can see what's going on here? >> absolutely, that's also we're doing this special next week where the people from in the courtroom are going to talk about and try to give people some color about what it's like. but that's only necessary because there are not cameras and there isn't at least audio. i have talked about how the first thing that struck me that i wish people could hear was the judge and hearing his voice. >> it's so different than i

expected. >> one side or the other is going to be disappointed in this case if there's a verdict one way or the other. the one thing, if you have been in court, you know that the judge is just a model of what you want in terms of a judge. you think of his judicial temperament is so exemplary. that, to me, in terms of institution building and faith of the american public in an institution, i think that is the shame of not having a public trial. >> what do you do? should the american public be rising up and demanding that there are cameras in the court? especially for something this consequential? how do you make cha change? >> there should be. we have now plenty of evidence from states that allow televised trials. it doesn't make a difference. it doesn't prjs prejudice the defese. i think it's sieve malfeasance. one of the concerns that came up in the supreme court's immunity argument was, look, there's 700

different state prosecutors in the country. if any state prosecutor could charge a president or former president with a crime, that would open the flood gates. i think folks were thinking about tany willis in that context. but this is the case of a state prosecutor, the district attorney of manhattan bringing a strong case, maybe the jury will convict, but i don't think you can cast doubt on the integrity of the prosecution or whether there was a legal grounds for bringing this case. i think the american public needs to know that. >> this is a case we really want to talk to jurors afterwards with any permission to find out how they feel. >> the jurors are not going to want to talk to us, they are not going to want their identity exposed because of everything that becomes to being attached to donald trump. you open yourself up. >> we need to find out how impressed were they by the fact

that he's the former president, how much did that weigh on them. >> it would be great to hear from them, but i also understand the desire not want to to want to talk. you open yourself up to being doxed and threats to your life. especially if there's a conviction here. thank you all so much for another marathon day. it's such a pleasure and privilege to be? w you. we appreciate it. that's going to do it for today's coverage of the hush money trial. the defense rested. the prosecution rested. now they are arguing about jury instructions. the judge, the next thing to look forward to is the summations on tuesday. but before that, "deadline: white house" is after a very short break. do not go anywhere. ter a very orsht break. do not go anywhere (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network.

(ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. 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.

[ serene music playing ] for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. welcome to the wayborhood. the wayfair vibe at our place is western. my thing, darling? shine. gardening. some of us go for the dramatic. how didn't i know wayfair had vanities in tile? [ gasps ] this. wow! do you have any ottomans without legs. sure. you'll flip for the poof cart. in the wayborhood, there's a place for all of us. ♪ wayfair. every style. every home. ♪ ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. memory foam doesn't come close. get your best sleep guaranteed. save up to $800 during our memorial day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you >> tech: does your windshield have a crack? trust safelite. this customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home... ...so he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... then we got to work. we replaced his windshield... ...and installed new wipers to protect his new glass. >> customer: looks great. thank you. >> tech: my pleasure. >> vo: we come to you for free. schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

hi, everyone. welcome to