Please proofread and correct any transcriptionist mistakes/typos in the following transcript (and please keep the >> symbols intact):

Many of us to believe that Cohen lied on the stand and there – there are a couple of occasions where we pointed that out.
But the – the biggest problem I think for the former president remains the instructions and the work of this judge.
I was astonished yesterday but what the judge allowed the prosecutors to get away with.
I thought much of the argument of the prosecutors was effective but it was also improper.
You know, at some points, the prosecutor was giving testimony, stuff that was not in evidence but he was saying that the reason that Hope Hicks cried was because she had put the final name nail on the coffin of her boss.
All of that stuff was coming directly out of the prosecutor knocked the record.
But the biggest problem is the judge allowed the prosecutor to say it is a fact that not only is there election violations here, but that they were ordered by trump.
Now, magnifying that problem are these instructions.
And these instructions are deadly for the president in a number of respects.
The most worrisome is that the judge said they don’t have to agree on what happened.
So that judge has said that there’s this other crime out there and the prosecutors have suggested three different crimes.
And he told the jury, you don’t have to agree on what actually occurred.
So you can have a jury that is split four, four, and four on what actually occurred, what that other crime was.
And the judge would treat it like unanimous verdict.
>> John: Right.
And to that point, one of the particular crimes that the jurors, decide on is a tax crime and Lydia, you have some thoughts on that.
What you think?
>> Lydia: Yeah, John, it seemed like the tax crime is kind of like the sleeper charge that was injected into all of this.
Even though let’s remind everybody it is not actually charge in the indictment.
But throughout the course of this trial, the evidence presented by the witnesses in the testimony, there was very little discussion about this tax crime.
And essentially what was kind of reignited during closing arguments and drink the judge’s instructions today was that this underlying object defense could be found if the jurors believe that a tax crime is committed.
That does not mean the judge explained that taxes were underpaid in this case.
But only that income was misreported.
And other – in other words, that it was a tax crime to say this reimbursement to Michael Cohen should have been reported as a reimbursement rather than income.
That is important to remember through all of this because it is possible that the jurors could look at all of these 34 accounts and decide, yes, documents were falsified, is that there was intent to defraud, and you know what?
That underline crime all along was this tax crime.
And they were not even have to touch the election stuff that most of the conspiracy stuff.
And I think that was really interesting and it feels a little sneaky because it wasn’t really talked about in the trial and yet here we are instructing the jury on it.
>> John: Yeah, I mean, the fact that you would draft an NDA with a former porn star?
That does not seem to make a whole lot of sense.
But it is one of the options for the jury to choose here.
>> Sandra: A couple of things here.
So Kerri, this gets interesting because as we were reported yesterday, the White House has said that President Biden upon the verdict will speak from the White House.
He has been silent on the issue as the trial has been ongoing for 6 weeks now.
As the former president was speaking this morning, he said this is – this trial is happening because of Joe Biden and the people around him.
>> President Trump: This is all because of Joe Biden.
I don’t think he is smart enough to think about it.
It is the people that surround him in the office.
They are smart.
They are fascist and communist.
They are smart.
And they are ruining our country.
>> Sandra: To move this story for you – forward, Kerri, the press secretary to the president was just asked about the trial and whether we will hear from the president and she said this.
>> I have to be pretty honest with you.
Are not a talk to the president about that.
Is going to be an important day.
They will have more to share and I said this yesterday a couple of times when I was asked this question in various ways that the president is focused on the American people, delivering for the American people.
You will hear him talk about, you know, some of that today, again, the campaign will speak to that.
It is a campaign event.
That is the focus.
>> Sandra: Make up that what you will, Kerri.
>> Kerri: Yeah, you know, for starters, obviously, it would be inappropriate for a president – for President Biden to be making any kind of comment on this verdict given that he has sworn over and over that he is going to stay away from all of this stuff and the – of course the fact that it is his political opponents, he would be speaking about and it does not help the fact that a top Biden justice official left DOJ to come work here to prosecute Donald Trump.
So putting the fact that – the inappropriateness of it, from a public relations standpoint, I thought it was an interesting announcement that was flooded after various media channels because look, Joe Biden had a pretty bad news cycle last few days.
He had the headline from politico saying that Democrats are in full freak out mode.
So as a former PR comes person, the first thing I would be taking us, we got to change the channel on this.
We got to put something out there to make people think not about how badly Biden is doing in the news right now.
So a couple ways you can do that.
You can sent Robert De Niro to Lower Manhattan and see how he postings up.
And the reality is, even if that backfired on him and the campaign, that is what everyone was talking about yesterday.
They were not necessarily talk about how badly Joe Biden was doing.
And secondly, by putting that out there in the news that he is going to be making an announcement, that gets everyone thinking ahead and expect leading about the news to come.
They are no longer looking backwards.
They are taking, oh, what is Joe Bailey going to say?
So for – from a PR standpoint, I thought it was pretty savvy.
>> John: All right.
>> Kerri: Not appropriate.
Savvy.
>> John: Jonathan Kim let’s talk a little bit about the jury since they are the center of attention right now even though they are noshing on probably what I expect would be some good New York deli.
Seven men, five women, three number one is a man who works in sales.
Are a number two, a man who worked in investment banking.
Mentioned that.
New York.
Number three is a man.
He is a corporate lawyer.
Durer four to imminent security engineer, is a teacher, she is a woman.
Durer six is a woman.
Software engineer.
The juror number seven, a man who is a civil litigator.
That is our second juror.
Juror nine is a woman, a speech therapist.
Juror 10, a man who works in commerce.
Dura 10, a woman who works in development.
And a woman who works as a physical therapist.
That is a broad cross-section of New York’s society if ever we have seen one.
A couple of attorneys in there as we have mentioned before, how do you think based on your experience that the loop – the deliberations proceed here.
>> Jonathan: Well, the biggest wildcard is going to be the two attorneys.
I’ve always oppose having attorneys on juries.
Batteries not because I can predict how they are going to vote.
But because of the influence they can have on other jurors.
This is a very difficult case for injury to be able to work through.
It is a very easy case to vote to convict.
But, you know, you just accept what the government might have said.
But if you delve into those – these allegations, they break apart.
But these entries could have a big influence in cutting that off in deliberations.
>> Sandra: Lydia, a final thought from you?
>> Lydia: You know, in reviewing the makeup of the jurors and what they are being asked to do which is essentially set aside their own stereotypes and biases, you know, we have one juror on here who admitted, juror number 11, she said she thinks trouble seems very selfish and self-serving.
So I don’t really appreciate that any public servant.
This will be it has as to whether she and the others can set that aside.
>> Sandra: All right, Lydia, Andy, Jonathan, Andy was with us last time. Jonathan and Kerri Urbahn, thank you so much.
>> John: That is a pretty general description for many people in politics.
The jury in the Trump trial will resume deliberations soon regardless of the outcome.
What is the fallout for our political system?
Wall Street Journal editor at large Gerry Baker joins us coming up next.

>> Sandra: The jury is now deliberating.
It is a lunch break that continues.
But they can continue deliberating to the lunch break.
Of his criminal case against an American president.
To track is right now facing 34 charges in this New York case in the jury’s verdict could have a lasting legal on all future U.S. presidents.
Wall Street Journal editor at large Gerry Baker joins us now.
You sat down I said it is almost surreal that here we are waiting on the verdict of a former U.S. President sitting trial for 6 weeks and counting now.
>> Gerry: I’m not going to make any judgment about anything we have heard were the lawyers, I trust and respect have sent this trial has been very strange and lots of ways including the judge’s summing up and charged with the jury.
I’m not a lawyer.
I can’t speak about that.
What I do know a little bit about his politics and legal applications.
I find this very, very worrying because holistic – let’s take what little is now.
Let’s suppose Trump is convicted.
Let’s suppose he is found guilty.
The conviction will certainly have an effect on some voters and they may decide not to vote for him and he loses the election narrowly in November.
And then the appeals court in New York will ultimately have the federal Supreme Court comes up and actually overturns the four and says, no, this was – this trial was proudly held, what is going to happen?
Trump has quick trip has not lusitropic may have lost the election because of fundamentally what a lot of people would allege as malpractice by prosecutors and the church.
And I think the larger implication here is how can anyone possibly think that this election will not have been influenced by all of this l’affaire?
So I do worry.
I don’t think the last election was stolen?
I think there were lots of strange things.
And I think last election and the end was very decided to go into much much easier to make the case for the selection was made because of all of this – because of this legal stuff.
And I think particularly if he is convicted, he can say, what chances I have?
If I lose the election, what chance do you have with these people to this obviously political persecution, this obviously political trial against me?
What chance did I have to win the election?
It fundamentally undermines trust not just in our judicial system, Sandra, but in the election itself.
>> John: So Gerry, it is John here in Washington.
How do you think people and I’m not just talk about Trump faithful.
But independence that may be Democrats that are not really happy with Joe Biden are going to look at his trial and the fact that the judge had a very large strike zone for the prosecution according to our legal analyst, a very small one for the former president.
And now then now the fact that the judge is saying, look, you don’t have to all agree to the jury of what happened here.
You just need to agree that he committed a crime and here’s a bunch of choices that you can pick from.
It is not unanimity in terms of this is a crime and we all agree this is what happen.
How do you think that is going to buy politically?
>> Gerry: I actually do think most people and most fair-minded people are not crazy for a trip or crazy against Trump.
They will look at this and say, have real reservations about his trial for the reasons you have laid out, there, John, this various Curious George to the jury from the church and the whole conduct of the trial which I think has left a lot of people wondering whether or not this is really just his.
And I do think, look, it reminds me a lot of the junk I’ve said this before, you remember this extremely well because I think you were in Washington.
It reminds me a little bit of the Bill Clinton Monaco Iwinski story when Bill Clinton was impeached and in the end most people thought, you know, this was a guy coming up in – and offered that he was ashamed of and it really should not be a legal or political issue and I think that is what most regular voters are going to think about this.
>> John: We will see.
>> Sandra: Great to have you on, Gerry.
Thank you.
We are watching the New York State Supreme Court for any news on jury deliberations in this Trump trial.
The proceedings in a lunch break for now, but the jurors can still deliberate.
Bret Baier on where all this is headed next.

¶ ¶
>> John: The Biden campaign pivoting on its strategy.
The camping setting circuits to the courthouse yesterday for a news conference featuring a bizarre appearance from an actor, Robert De Niro.
Bret Baier is the anchor and executive editor of “Fox News reports.”
What did you make of what we saw in the streets of New York.
>> Bret: It looked to me like President Biden is trailing in some swing state polls and the need to get some serious oxygen and perhaps some of the campaign and thought that this is the way to do it, to put a celebrity out there, you know, railing on different talking points that he has before, but doing it in front of the media and in front of the courthouse thereby breaking the bubble of the coverage of the trial.
I do think it does not look, you know, great for the campaign.
It does feel like it is an effort to grasp at trying to get attention.
But what he said there was one of the campaign is probably most likely going to focus on, a threat to democracy, that he is going to stay in office if he wins.
Those things we have heard from Biden surrogates, Robert De Niro is just a new one.
>> Sandra: Bret, great to have you on.
Is this a sign or a further sign as a political headline yesterday but it that Dems are in a full-blown freak out over Joe Biden?
The piece reads “a pervasive sense of fear at the highest levels of the Democratic Party over.
And Joe Biden’s were election prospects.”
Even among officeholders and strangers who have expressed confidence about the coming battle with Donald Trump.
Are you hearing similar thoughts from the Democrat party.
>> Bret: Yes, and I have had numerous talks with folks who are in regular status.
They have been that way for several weeks.
Really since the first New York Times CNN College poll came out showing those swing state trailing in key swing states five or six.
Then it seemed to get worse as some of the Democrats demographics in every poll that we look like including Black voters, Hispanic voters, traditional Democratic stronghold seems to be shifting.
Shifting enough that it is forcing changes in the campaign.
So yes, I hear that inside Democratic circles all over Washington.
>> John: So this has just come out.
Justice Alito has sent a letter to Congress saying that he is not going to recuse himself from any cases involving January 6.
Talk about the flags that were flying at his home, the upside down Old Glory and then an appeal to the flag that flew at his cottage.
He said it was all his wife.
He says my wife’s reasons for point of light are not relevant for present purposes.
My wife is fond of flying flags.
I am not.
He said he asked her to take on the upside down American flag but for several years, she refused to do so.
He says I was not aware of any connection between this historic flight and the top and – Stop the Steal movement.
That was the appeal.
And if it was my wife.
She did not find it to associate herself with that or any other group.
The use of an old historic flight does not drain that flight of all other meanings.
It has Kahoot! in the American Revolution.
He is basically saying, I’m saying.
>> Bret: And Democrats are trying to make a big deal about this and obviously because he has, you know, the key points of – as justice in this trial to come.
They are trying to get him to recuse.
He is not going to and it is clear that he is not saying that he flew the flag.
He is not giving care about the fight.
>> John: It is an interesting letter to read because it goes into detail about the spat that his neighbor was having with his wife and his wife was very upset about it and basically the middle finger to the neighbor.
I hope she does.
>> Bret: It does make the question how much of the family member and what they do or don’t do should impact how you look at a Justice and their impartiality.
>> John: Beth, thank you.
– Bret, thank you.
>> Sandra: I’m watching the clock where the jury deliberating at a time the clock is ticking.
All this is not in the hands of a new, juries.
The jurors are currently on lunch break as we have been saying but they can’t still continue deliberating during that lunch break.
So we are awaiting the return from that.
We’re keeping an eye on all of the latest development.
We will bring them to you.
A quick break.
We will be right back.

¶ ¶
>> John: Kumul charges against the golfer Scottie Scheffler have been dropped.
Attorneys say they cannot move forward with the case based on the evidence.
Scheffler had been accused of reckless driving and assaulting a police officer.
The arresting officer, the one he allegedly assaulted, and does has also been reprimanded.
We are not those for not following the proper procedure.
Sandra?
>> Sandra: The COVID is the committee uncovering evidence of a possible conspiracy among top health official to evade investigators and cover their tracks by hiding public records on the pandemic.
Congressional correspondent I sure how she is live on the hill for us.
Were they giving – getting help?
>> Reporter: We might point out.
We are all going to soon probably made the foil league, the so-called foyer lady.
The committee tells us they know her name.
Her name is Margaret Moore but she goes by March and the German plans on bringing her in for a transcribed interview.
>> Achik worked with Dr. Lawrence?
Did she try to give him ideas of how to avoid Voya?
Doesn’t she feel that it is her job to engage and fully adhered to the law in releasing documents as requested?
>> Reporter: All those questions come after last week when Dr. Fauci’s former top adviser, Dr. David Moran offered apologies excuses after a trove of his the most showed him trying to evade FOIA requests to hide conversations about COVID and EcoHealth Alliance.
In one of those e-mails, he writes, I learned from our foyer lady how to make these e-mails disappear but before the search starts.
And more dramatic e-mails to Fox one in which Peter Doncic calls the group seeking public records awful just out to cause tribal, drum up lab leaks conversing.
Now, again, also sent the NIH Director a letter this week demanding a staff briefing by the next Tuesday.
So this is far from over as all eyes are now on this FOIA lady.
Sandra?
>> Sandra: Crazy.
And we know you are watching it for us.
Aishah Hasnie on the hill for us.
Thank you.
>> John: A New York jury about to wrap up its lunch break and consider 34 felony charges against President Trump.
Our legal panel ahead as we await a verdict.

¶ ¶
>> John: We are now on verdict watch as the fate of former President Donald Trump is now in the hands of 12 jurors.
They were dismissed to begin deliberations as the judge wrapped up his instructions.
And with that, it begins hour two.
I’m John Roberts in Washington as we sit and watch and wait.
>> Sandra: Every day is a new day.
I’m Sandra Smith, and this is “America Reports.”
The judge told the jurors they must be unanimous to find the former president guilty on any of the 34 counts that he currently faces.
They also cannot hold Trump’s decision not to testify in this case against him.
And when it comes to the prosecution’s star witness, Michael Cohen, the judge told the jury that they cannot convict solely on his testimony.
>> John: Let’s bring in our panel, Trey Gowdy, host – Andy Gaudi, and Lydia Hu, correspondent for Fox Business.
So Andy, let’s start with you.
The jury has to unanimously believe that Donald Trump committed a crime in order to convict him.
But they do not need to unanimously agree on what that crime was.
And in what world does that work?
>> Andy: Not in any world I have ever been in, John.
You look at what makes it a criminal prosecution appropriate in the sense of taking somebody’s liberty, the array of constitutional protections we have, I have always understood them in 20 years of prosecuting cases and then four years that I carried and analyzed them, I always understood that to mean every crime has a set of essential elements and what the jury has to be unanimous on is that the government approves the elements beyond a visible dock.
It to me, it is an essential element of that case.
Of this case, it is the most essential element that they find this other crime because of the only reason we are here is because Bragg used the other crime to inflate what would otherwise be a misdemeanor into a Foley that allowed him to escape the statute of limitations.
So that they didn’t have to be unanimous on that makes no sense to me, constitutionally.
>> Sandra: Trey, what did you think when you heard the instructions?
>> Trey: How in the world can ordinary citizens follow this?
I mean, I have a law degree.
I was not a great lawyer, but I always went for a long time.
I had a hard time following up and up and then went to church votes in the instructions back, how in the world can you expect people to remember the intricacies of what he charged to Andy’s Park, it is like a buffet.
You say, okay, I want this crime.
I want that crime.
Where I come from, something is a crime when it has been proven beyond a reachable doubt or when somebody admits to it.
So what are the elements of these three additional crimes.
I just think the jury instructions are incredibly important notion that you can’t have them back there while you are deliberating.
It is dumbfounding to me.
>> John: Lydia, we have seen in murder trials where the jury can find a defendant guilty of second-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.
But you can’t have four people on the jury saying, well, I think it is second-degree murder and the judge says, I will accept it and then you have four others who say, no, I think it is aggravated manslaughter and Jordan Morris another thing and then you have this smorgasbord of what the jury thinks that person should be convicted on.
But apparently some people are saying this is standard in New York law but Andy, – Andy does not agree with that.
What are your thoughts?
>> Lydia: Yeah, this kind of feels like jury instructions and charges by a buffet where you can pick the way in which you want to assemble these charges and come up with some type of crime to convict the former president and I agree that it is extremely troubling.
And I also agree with our colleagues here that these jury instructions were very confusing and a long.
It took over an hour or about an hour to deliver them.
We know that they are more than 50 pages typed out.
So I can’t imagine being a member of the drink now and being discharged after sitting through a marathon closing arguments just yesterday and now being asked to, you know, remember what the jury instructions are and apply the facts to the law as we now understand them.
There are a couple things that I was listening for in the jury instructions, too, to your point, John.
And one of the things that I did not hear from the judge was that it was an instruction about witnesses that we did not hear from.
You know, we never heard from Allen Weisselberg in this trial.
And that was a big question.
We don’t know why that is.
But the big hole left in this case was that he could speak to or kind of informed and provide more context around the conversations with President Trump with Michael Cohen, with respect to paying Stormy Daniels’ NDA.
The conversation about Cohen’s reimbursement or payment into 2017.
And the missing link there, the jury maybe asking, can we assume that we can draw a negative inference that if you were to survive, it would not have helped the prosecution’s case?
And it would have helped the defense?
I think this question that I’m looking forward to hearing from the jury perhaps as they are, you know, considering the allegations now.
>> Sandra: Trump attorney will sharp joint is to give – will sharp joint as to give us his – joined us to give as his takeaways.
He said this.
>> The prosecution has abjectly failed to prove that he had anything to do with the recordings made in question.
That alone is reason for a speedy acquittal on the part of the jury here and I believe that any fair jury would see through at least that aspect of the case and certainly the fact that the prosecution is relying on Michael Cohen, a serial perjurer and liar who was thoroughly discredited on the stand for a crucial parts of their case.
I think this case has more holes than Swiss cheese and I’m hopeful.
>> Sandra: We want to get your thoughts on that, and – Andy.
>> Andy: This goes to the accomplice point that we were talked about before.
There is one aspect of the case at least that Michael Cohen is the only witness for.
And that is this meeting where he and Trump and Weisselberg supposedly discussed how they were going to structure his compensation in 2017.
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t think I’m missing anything on this.
Cohen is the only witness for the proposition that Trump was in on that conversation and understood it and other than that, I don’t know of any evidence that would give Trump knowledge of the bookkeeping aspects of this.
>> John: Let me crawl on your expertise as a litigator and a former member of Congress.
When you take a look at the fact that you said many, many times during the trial that the strike zone for the prosecution was a very large and the strike zone for the defense was more like a temple.
Also, you added the fact that the gag order provided out of trouble from saying anything substantive about the trial.
And this cafeteria aspect to the charges that the jury could convict on.
If the president is convicted, how do you think all of that is going to play politically?
>> Trey: I don’t think it will hurt him one bit.
I thought maybe he had some exposure in terms of political exposure on the two federal indictments, neither of which will go to court before November.
This one, I think it is possible that a conviction.
Abby Cook, an allegedly progressive prosecutor put a tuxedo on a misdemeanor and called it a felony in a jurisdiction where Donald Trump got about 15% of the vote.
I just don’t think that is going to hurt him politically anywhere other than Manhattan, which by the way, he was not going to carry anyway.
>> Sandra: Lydia, almost any person who has left this student at are joining us the past hour plus, I asked what is your prediction?
How long is this going to take.
How would you answer that, Lydia?
>> Lydia: Oh, gots Cassandro, that is so hard to predict but you never know what is going to the minds of the jurors.
As they are being tested to decide these 34 counts.
One would think that if it comes back fast that they are all in agreement.
You know?
All in agreement for a conviction or all in agreement for an acquittal.
That it – that is if it comes back fast.
The longer they deliberate, perhaps it would suggest that they have some disagreement and maybe they have consensus or on some of the accounts or others.
But there’s certainly a lot to discuss with the 34 counts.
>> John: All right, well, in terms of how long it is going to take, shortest deliberation and he was history with six minutes.
Magus deliberation in the world which is in the – the record was for a half months but hopefully we are somewhere in between those as we go along.
Lydia, Trey, Andy, thanks so much.
Appreciate it.
We will see you soon.
>> Sandra: I like that you keep that part of the Ginnis worked – book of world records.
That is a live look at the Supreme Court.
Deliberations are ongoing right now with the jury in the New York versus Trump trial case.
We are watching this.
We are waiting together.
Quick break.
Mercedes Colwin joining us on the other side.

>> Sandra: We are officially on verdict watch at the New York versus Trump criminal trial.
Could we get a decision from the jury soon.
That is the question at this hour and what does it mean for the former president if we do not correct.
Let’s bring in trial attorney Mercedes Colwin – Mercedes Colwin.
Is this going to be a speedy verdict or will this take some time.
>> Mercedes: That is the million dollar account – million dollar question Cassandra.
It will ball to whether or not the intermittent – unanimity amongst the jurors.
I wish I was a juror.
I’ve always been excluded during the jury process which is unfortunate.
They will do a quick pour.
Generally speaking, when you are in the deliberation room, they will do a quick poll and say, where is everyone’s thoughts?
I know you have been thinking about this for a while.
Has been a five and a half with the trial.
Where are you?
If there’s unanimity done, then things are going to go very quickly whether it is for exoneration or full conviction.
If there is not, it is likely won’t be, this has been a long track a lot of evidence, a lot of testimony, a lot of witnesses.
They will be a process and what my gut says, we will get the verdict before Friday.
We will have to see what that means that.
>> John: So the fact that the judge has given the jury, Mercedes, so many choices and what they can find Trump guilty of in terms of the present – predicate crime and the fact that there could be various commissions and permutations of what they agree on, five of them could agree on one crime.
Two could agree on another and then five could agree on another crime.
But it is not all 12 the green on the same time.
Does that make it easier or more difficult to get to a verdict?
>> Mercedes: Great question, John.
It will – because there does not need to be unanimity and there be several theories of this predicate crime.
You would likely get more likelihood of a consensus.
So there could be four individuals that say that it is – which is the federal election crimes.
It could be a tax evasion.
It could be just – I mean, there’s three different theories that are sort of swimming around and a lot of individuals especially in this bar seemed to question in fact this morning, I question it.
One of the other attorneys said that they have seen it actually happen in cases where the judge does charge the jury in this way.
Where there could be a choice for the jurors to decide what that predicate crime might be.
>> Sandra: Jonathan Turley sent this in the near post on Monday this week, Mercedes.
He writes, here is why the case against Trump should eat and not guilty.
Mershon has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what the crime is.
The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes will be concealed.
And Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.
Can you expand on that, Mercedes?
>> Mercedes: Well, that is exactly what we are talking about.
Is that if there’s no unanimity, let’s say for instance you have three different versions of what that predicate crime could become one of them was just mentioned.
Expect a patient may be the other and the falsification of business records.
So if you’re looking at the three, there could be four that is a, I think this is an election crime.
Then the next four might say, this is a tax issue.
And the other four might say, well, this is really just falsification of the business records with an underlying criminal purpose.
And if you are looking at that type of split, then you can look and say, well, the crime has occurred.
We’re just not agreeing as to why that crime was done in the first place.
So the underlying reasons for the crime, we are not unanimous in what that is.
But in terms of actually finding guilty verdict on the basis of crime occurred, that we can all agree on.
>> Sandra: Right.
So Sandra –
>> Mercedes: So Sandra, a lot of appellate lawyers have been saying that this would be ripe for an appeal if actually former President Trump is convicted.
>> John: So let’s take a look at the makeup of the jury if we can put that up on the screen here.
We have a man who works in sales, a man who works investment banking, a corporate lawyer who is a man, a man who is a security engineer, a woman who is a teacher, a woman who is a software engineer, a man who is a civil litigator, a man who is a retired wealth manager, a woman who is a speech therapy, a woman who works in product development, and a woman who works as a physical therapist.
That is a pretty broad cross-section.
New York a society.
You got to attorneys there, corporate lawyer and a civil litigator.
What do you make of the makeup of the jury?
>> Mercedes: Smart Entry.
I love it.
And this is my back-rim.
This is where I try Casis in New York.
This is a cross-section of every smart jury.
You have a lot of smart professionals on factory, even – even that retiree has a business background.
So these are very smart people.
And you needed people to be very smart because there’s so many facts here.
The law has to be interspersed within the fact that you have to interpret a lot of complex issues.
Even though at the essence of the core, it does not seem to be difficult.
But the application of the laws are going to be a little hairy for these – for someone who is not – what the judge is asking them to do.
It is 90 minutes, I believe he was contorting them for about 90 minutes.
In New York, they don’t get a copy.
They don’t get a copy of the jury instructions.
These jurors can ask for]
That is also a reason why you want a smarter jury to walk through some of the complexity of the jury instruction and so I think it is a great victory.
And two lawyers on the year, we will have to see if they become leaders within the deliberation.
>> Sandra: I want to play this from the former president this morning talking about this trial will be 1 for the history books, Mercedes.
>> President Trump: They will be talking about it in the history books.
What is happening here is weaponization at a level that nobody has seen before ever.
And it should not be allowed to happen.
I think the people of this country see that this is a great deal.
It is a weaponized deal for the Democrats to hit their political opponent.
>> Sandra: 1 for the history books.
Maybe one for the law books, too, Mercedes.
>> Mercedes: Yes, you know Cassandra, I’m part of the criminal justice system.
I’m part of the judicial system.
It is something I have a lot of faith in the 36 him.
This is where I work.
This is the air I breathe.
I have faith in the process.
I have faith that these jurors will do the right thing.
Especially someone as an insider like myself who has been trying cases for decades.
So I’m hopeful that the criminal justice system and the way it is supposed to work prevails.
I’m sure there are going to be criticism on whatever the outcome is because it is in the eyes of the beholder.
But at the end of the day, those of us who were insiders have tremendous hope in the criminal justice system and the judicial system as a whole.
>> John: Yeah, you know, it was interesting, Mercedes, that former president have exited the courtroom from the lunch break, he almost seemed to have a sense of resignation that in fact, verdict ultimately could be guilty.
Listen to what he said.
>> President Trump: Mother Teresa could not beat these charges.
These charges are rigged, the whole thing is rigged.
The whole country is a mess between the borders and they go elections and you have a trial like this.
Where the judge is so conflicted he can’t breathe.
He has to do his job.
It is a tough for me, that I can tell you.
It is a disgrace.
And I mean that.
Mother Teresa could not beat those charges.
But we will see.
We will see how we do.
>> John: What did you make of what he said?
>> Mercedes: It is someone who feels he has been falsely accused and partially prosecuted.
I mean, this is not something that is unique to former President Trump.
You hear it from others who are facing prosecutions, across the country, where they feel that they are being persecuted for reasons other than the commitment of a crime.
So it is not unusual, John, that those who feel that they are falsely prosecuted will have those sentiments.
>> Sandra: All right, Mercedes Colwin, awesome to have you on.
Thank you so much.
>> John: Thanks, Mercedes.
>> Mercedes: My pleasure.
Thanks for having me.
>> John: Kayleigh McEnany is coming up next as we await the jury to resume deliberations in this history-making trial.
Stay with us.

¶ ¶
>> John: As the jury deliberates the counts against former President Trump, the political states could not be higher.
It could have a massive impact on both Trump and Biden’s campaigns.
Let’s bring in Kayleigh McEnany, “outnumbered,” host and former White House Press Secretary.
Kayleigh, some say if the former president is convicted, as we were talking with Mercedes Colwin, he seemed to indicate it could be a real possibility.
But then if he is convicted, his approval rating will go up 10 points.
What do you think?
>> Kayleigh: You look and we will see.
I don’t think anyone on his team wants to see a conviction.
Not just for personal reasons but because that is a huge unknown.
I mean, it is never happen in the history for a potential candidate.
So it is a huge unknown politically.
So I don’t think anyone is rooting for that per se on his team I would guess.
But nevertheless, one thing I would know about the polls because I’ve seen the polls that show a certain percentage, shipped here or there depending on a conviction and I question those and the reason I say this, John, is because I have heard the argument over and over again, well, if he is indicted, the bottom falls out.
Well, if there’s a mugshot, the bottom falls out.
If this goes to trial and received all these charges against presidents from that are salacious, the bottom falls out.
But the bottom has not fallen out.
And politico noted that this number is read that at the beginning of the trial in April 22nd, there was a .3% lead for drop in 538.
Today, that is 1.4%.
So this has not hurt him.
A lot of this is baked in.
Yes, a conviction would be novel.
Yes, who knows what will happen in the event of a conviction?
But I wonder how much of this the storyline for back in 2016, how much of this is already baked in.
>> Sandra: All right, Kayleigh, you and I had a chance to catch up yesterday on “outnumbered.”
I was quick to join the lady on the count.
And we were talking about this change.
What changed with the White House to work now the president says he is going to speak from the White House at the conclusion of this trial once the verdict is reached?
Ben Charo Pierre was asked about this just a short time ago.
Listen to what she had to say when asked about this trial.
>> I have to be pretty honest with you I have not talked to the president about that.
Is going to be an important day.
Office to campaign is going to have more to share.
And I said this into a couple times when I was asked this question in various ways.
That the president is focused on the American people, delivering for the American people you will hear him talk about, you know, some of that today, again, the campaign will speak to that, a campaign event.
That is his focus.
>> Sandra: I’m wondering if your reaction.
Is a former White House press secretary about what she just said and that the president will weigh in on the outcome of this.
>> Kayleigh: You know, I think it was hard for her to put much of that to the campaign because it is after all the campaign that showed up yesterday.
So that was a good move there.
But I’m various curious – very curious about this decision.
I’m very curious about what we saw yesterday and I think politico who wrote the inside story of how that event came about, they noted it was born out of frustration, frustration by White House or campaign officials I should say that were frustrated that trip is getting a lot of the oxygen.
He is driving the narrative every single day.
And I think they are desperate for attention and they talked about in the article they need to be nimble and creative.
I think a lot of this has to do with him driving the narrative and secondly, how successful the Bronx rally was.
President Trump chose to go speak at the libertarian convention of the bacon.
Yes, there were some boos here and there.
But it was a creative move, audacious move.
So I think it was best embodied with their debate of hey, take us up on these terms and they set the terms of the debate.
That was a case that the Biden campaign being nimble.
Yesterday, I’m not quite sure if it it, though.
>> John: Yeah, I was going to say, what happened yesterday with De Niro.
Is that the right attention to the campaign wanted to get?
Could that be described as nimble and creative.
>> Kayleigh: I don’t think so but I think there was even a quick from the, mitigation structure reported in a row about, you know, as President Trump napping right now?
I mean, they really kind of lead into this case and I think it is kind of a full’s Aaron, John, when there is making the case, these are the Biden trials in the event of a guilty verdict, they are send he is going to continue to make that case.
So you lean into what your opponent is describing as by Contreras.
If I was in the Biden White House or campaign, I would not be touching this with a 10-foot pole.
And I think it sticks to the level of desperation they are feeling right now, the level of interparty pressure they are feeling at the moment.
>> Sandra: It really interesting.
Gerry Baker it said something similar as he sat down here that take a look at this may be working against Democrats longer than he is sitting in there and not out, you know, out of there.
This is working for him, Kayleigh.
>> Kayleigh: Yeah, and look, make no mistake, this is a huge moment not just to this campaign.
It is a huge moment in American history.
We have never seen this before.
No one really knows where this will go.
I have to wonder, as much of oxygen as this is getting now, and deservedly so, five months from now, Sandra, what is the conversation going to be?
The American people are going to be going out to vote November 5th, 2024, thinking about Thanksgiving dinner.
Taking of that grocery bill.
Their kids going back to college.
Many of whom get out of college and can’t afford homes.
The Christmas list that their kids are putting together and I’m wondering if a Stormy Daniels payment even if a guilty verdict were to come out of this is going to be top of mind five months from now amid all the other troubles we face?
>> John: All right, Kayleigh, it is great to see it is great to see you.
We will see you again tomorrow on “Outnumbered.”
>> Sandra: Thank you, Kayleigh.
>> John: Appreciate it.
>> Sandra: All right, Scottie Scheffler’s legal woes appear to be over.
We have just learned a prosecutor has dropped all the charges against him.
This just in.
After that traffic incident in Kentucky that led to his arrest.
Earlier this month.
Garrett Tenney is live in Chicago with more.
Garrett, how exactly is Scheffler reacting to this?
>> Reporter: Inches – in the last few minutes we got a statement from Scottie Scheffler pointed to his Instagram.
He emphasizes, I hold no ill will toward Officer Gillis.
I wish to put this incident behind me and move on and I hope he will do the same.
He says police officers have a difficult job and I hold them in high regard.
This was a severe risk mitigation, and a chaotic situation.
His attorney says the world’s number one golfer is also both happy and relieved that prosecutors have dropped all charges against him.
Scottie Scheffler was facing multiple charges including felony assault of a police officer for allegedly ignoring an officer’s instructions to stop his car and then dragging the officer to the ground as he slowly pulled up to the entrance of the golf club.
Scheffler has said all along the whole thing was a big misunderstanding and the chaotic scene and today, 12 days after his arrest, prosecutors back him up.
>> Based on the totality of the evidence, my office cannot move forward in the prosecution of the charges filed against Mr. Scheffler.
Mr. Scheffler for characterization this was “indeed a big misunderstanding.”
Cooperated by the evidence.
>> Garrett: That evidence included multiple eyewitness accounts, body camera video not from the officer involved since he never turned his on apart from other officers who were there.
Now that the case is over, police say they will be releasing some of that additional video from the scene.
Outside of the courthouse, after today’s hearing, Scheffler’s attorney revealed they were also preparing to file a civil lawsuit against the city of Louisville over the arrest.
But that ultimately Scheffler said he did not want to do that.
He wants to move on and be able to focus on remarkable season that he is having.
Sandrone.
>> Sandra: That was a long road, for sure, to get to this moment.
Garrett Tenney in Chicago, thank you, Garrett.
>> John: We are waiting and watching for the jury’s product to come out as they are about to resume deliberations.
And the courthouse there in downtown New York.
Former Trump attorney Jim Trusty with his thoughts on how those deliberations could go and what happens when a verdict comes out.
He is next.

>> Sandra: We are looking live at the New York state Supreme Court where we are awaiting word from the jury as deliberations continue on former President all Trump’s historic criminal trial.
How is the Trump defense team preparing for what could be a worse case scenario?
A conviction.
Joining us now, Jim Trusty, former Trump attorney.
Jim, could you answer that question for us?
>> Jim: Not perfectly.
I mean, look, it is really the worst part of the style, Sandra – trial, Sandra.
I have tried a lot of jury trials.
It is by far the most stressful part for the client and it is the most stressful part for the lawyer when you’re just trying to kill time and trying to Spike Lee of what is happening behind the closed door.
So you prepare the client for the rest.
You explain what could happen next in terms of setting a sentencing and whether there’s any argument about stepping him back to making him start serving a jail sentence not.
There’s a lot of stuff to talk about probably endless questions from the client.
But at the end of the day, it is like this Pavlovian thing where he waited and then wait and wait a – and suddenly the buzzer goes off and you are in court getting a breaded.
>> John: Something, Jim, that we’ve been talking about, you have been in situations like this.
As a prosecutor.
The judge has wild Biden the playing field by saying there does not need to be unanimous agreement on what the predicate crime here was.
Six people can agree that it was one thing.
Report could agree on that it was something else.
And the remaining three could agree that it was something else.
But yet they will not agree in the overall.
You still get 12 people saying he did something wrong, that he is guilty.
How does that strike you?
>> Jim: Very generous.
And problematic on the long run possibly on appeal as well.
I mean, you are basically saying, yes, I need a unanimous verdict of guilt or innocence on the count.
But we are stripping away elements.
We are giving this kind of smorgasbord approach.
Four people saying it is this, four people saying it is that, four people saying it is something else.
One of them is totally vague.
Another one talks about the Federal election law.
Take back the judge precluded effectively letting an expert from the FEC chair position testified about that.
So the jury is particularly kind of spectacular uninformed on what these other elements might be.
>> John: So you think this might more easily lead to a conviction if the jury is given this multiple-choice question?
>> Jim: Yeah, I think it is a finger on the scale.
I think.
I think it is a moment was quick to judge had some difficult decisions to make about exactly how to instruct and he went with the most government friendly.
>> Sandra: You know, it is, it is one of those moments where the firehose of updates coming from inside of that courtroom and now we are just left wondering what exactly is going on.
I mean, we know they are in lunch break.
But the jury can continue deliberating during that time, Jim.
You have been listening to our programming.
What are we leaving out?
What should we be thinking about and anticipating next?
>> Jim: Well, I the biggest told that is to come over the next day or two or however long it takes is jury notes.
You know?
If there are notes that come out of the jury, could tell us a lot about where we are, are they focusing on a particular account which will be probably a bad sign for President from.
But of course, if in that is an exact because you don’t know if it is one person asking or 12.
And so it could be misleading to take the notes as gospel as to where the jury is.
That is kind of a what I’m waiting for.
Let’s see if there are some notes that are coming up.
Silence means they are working together, a little bit scary if you were on the defensive side.
You want to disarm that.
If you want these people struggling with the very basics of whether there’s even a crime here.
>> John: So you were joking earlier that you expect a jury and 2:17 Friday afternoon because the jurors would get their last relaunch and they still get out early for the weekend.
>> Jim: You were not explain – supposed to explain all of my reasoning, John.
Let’s be real here.
>> John: We have heard that many, many times before that the jury wants to get one more lunch in.
But with all that they have to consider, how long do you think this is going to take?
>> Jim: Yeah, the real answer is who the heck knows?
Anyone who pretends they know is suspect.
I mean, look, I did see an awful lot of Friday afternoon verdicts over the years.
So I would kind of confidently announced that is when is going to happen.
At 50% chance it did, 50% chance it did not.
I think that they have a lot to chew on.
But the basics are not really the 34 counts.
It is the basics of, is there any crimes here at all?
If they started wading into Count 17 verses Count 19, again, bad sign for the defense.
It means they are probably going to come up with something along the lines of conviction.
But they are struggling with the fundamentals of, is it even a false entry?
Is there any sort of criminal trying to Donald Trump other than Michael Cohen?
That is the Bella Field you want.
>> Sandra: I will tell you what.
I have taken notes.
We will make sure we are not in a commercial break on Friday at 2: 17 p.m. Easter – Eastern Time.
>> Jim: I will do the biggest victory lap in history if that ends up being true.
>> Sandra: Well, we know that we will be right here and we will be covering every minute of it.
Jim Trusty, joining us on that as we do have – look life there at the New York State Supreme Court in New York City.
Jim, if I could, as we still have you here, there’s some activity outside of the court as it is being described to us right now.
A protest across the street.
But there has been almost every day of this trial, our producers describing it as above – about 50 people in a park, a couple people waving flags, playing music to move right now – mood right now is the same as it has.
You can imagine all that would change quick – pretty quickly the moment that we get a verdict, Jim.
>> Jim: Yeah, and I think a lot of people will listen on the courthouse of all sorts of political stripes.
And I have to tell you, I’m very concerned.
On a legal guy, not a political guy.
But the White House announcement coming from President Biden certainly smells in the abstract like a victory lap.
I think that would be bad for the country and I think there’s a chance that is going to play terribly if the president trip is convicted and President Biden seems to be gloating over the water that was used to get to this point.
So we will see.
I think there goes, a lot of public unrest that could follow this product either way.
>> John: We expect if the former president work to convicted that felon would be a word that comes out of President Biden’s mouth quite often.
In particular, on the 27th of June, they go head-to-head in a debate.
But you know, in terms of an appeal, so many people that we have talked to, I think you are among them, have said that there are so many grounds for appeal here, that the president is likely to get it overturned.
But very quickly, if you could, Jim, that could happen.
>> Jim: Realistically I know there’s some alternative theories about accelerating things.
But it could be more than months.
Property could be a year or two because – before there’s exoneration from the appellate process.
Maybe they will have a way to expedite if there’s an appeal.
The last thing, if I’m the defense team, I’m already working on a motion for new trial that lays out those grounds for build.
Get that out to the public.
To get this out to the trial judge.
That might get you some traction.
Both politically and legally.
>> John: All right, Jim, thanks so much.
Appreciate you.
We have been watching – we will be watching for 2: 17 Friday.
>> Sandra: Judge Jeanine joining us now right outside of the courthouse.
Cohost of “the five.”
Thank you so much for joining is.
So judge, tell us your thoughts in this moment, I don’t know, predictions, what we are leaving out, what should we be looking at as this jury is deliberating.
>> Jeanine: I’m flabbergasted by the charges to the jury.
You may have already gone through that but I was doing something else.
I have never heard a jury charge like this judge’s charge of this jury.
We knew the judge was flaky.
We knew that he hated Donald Trump.
But this judge is beyond the pale.
To say that he is going to take that misdemeanors and raise them to felonies when they don’t have to unanimously agree on what that felony is is starting to me.
It is absolutely stunning.
I want to be clear about something.
In New York State, when I was A.D.A., if I wanted to raise a misdemeanor and by the way, not a misdemeanor that is expired in terms of the statute of limitations.
But if I wanted to raise a misdemeanor to a felony, the only way to do that would be to file a certificate of conviction of another crime.
It could be a DWI.
It could be a gun possession.
To prove that in this particular case, this misdemeanor would end up as a felony and that is done outside of the presence of the jury.
Where it is very clear that there’s another real committed convicted case that raises the level of a misdemeanor to a felony.
This judge is making stuff up as he goes along.
This is a kangaroo court.
I will tell you that the level of reversible error on this is stunning.
And this judge unfortunately is connected to the jury in the sense that they see him as this calm, reliable guy who is as out of control in terms of the law and he does not know it or he is making it up as he goes along.
So that this defendant, a former president of the United States is convicted of a dead misdemeanors that like magic are – has turned into a felony.
This is unheard of Cassandra, John.
And I got to tell you one more thing.
It is almost like it is a rabbit show.
You pull a rabbit out of the hat.
But will look over here.
Look at Stormy Daniels.
Look at what she said.
None of that had anything to do with this.
It is all about this – destroying Donald Trump.
And this jury charge has sent me over the edge in terms of the law that is being made up as we go along and a felony that we have no idea of but now it is New York allegedly law that could be better – Federal election law, too, or it could be a tax violation and even if he did not underpay his taxes, it could still be a crime.
What is this man talking about.
>> John: Right.
And the judge, there’s the other aspect of this which is the multiple-choice aspect of the predicate crimes.
That the jury does not need to unanimously agree on what the predicate crime was.
When you were a judge in New York, did you ever instruct the jury to say, here’s a smorgasbord of things that you can find him guilty of and you don’t all have to find him guilty of the same thing.
Maybe you can find him guilty of one thing or some others could find him or her guilty of something else and the remainder of you can find something else to find him or her guilty of.
Have you ever issued an instruction like that.
>> Jeanine: It is not done.
John, it is not done.
And let’s talk about that one of three.
One is a Federal election campaign violation.
The other is a tax violation.
And the other is a creation additional records.
Federal election campaign violation, they did not let Brad Smith testify.
But you heard David test – David Pecker testified.
You heard Michael Cohen testified about that.
But Donald Trump and his defense was not allowed to talk about it.
But now all of a sudden, the jury has the ability to go in and not agreed that that is one of the felonies that is necessary to resurrect these dead misdemeanors.
But there’s no evidence.
The defense cannot defend themselves on it.
That is bizarre, John.
No one has heard of this.
It is like a menu, A, B, or C.
You don’t have to agree on it.
“Whatever .”
This is a kangaroo court.
This is unheard of.
I’m telling you, I’ve done this for 32 years.
I’m not a federal prosecutor.
On a state prosecutor.
I’m not a federal judge.
I’m a county judge just like commercial.
This is New York law.
This is my Will Harris.
He is wrong.
>> John: Judge, thank you.
>> Jeanine: And the proper is – okay, guys.
>> Sandra: No, finish your topic finish your thought.
>> Jeanine: No, and the sad part about it is this jury is going to think they are doing the right thing based upon a charge that no one has ever heard of.
That he created.
>> John: All right.
>> Sandra: Thank you, Judge.
>> John: Thank you.
We will be right back after this.
>> Sandra: You got her all choked up.
[LAUGHTER]