Every single person is saying there's no crime,
there's no crime. It's a kangaroo court.
There's never been anything like this that I've ever seen.
Now I have two other trials that were kangaroo courts
also.
It's stacked up.
Welcome back to closing arguments.
Today was day one of deliberations in the case against
former President Donald Trump.
He's accused of falsifying business records to cover up hush
money payments related to an alleged sexual scandal back in
2016.
And today, the jury deliberated for a total of
4 1/2 hours before they were sent home around 4:00
PM there in New York,
with the jury preparing to continue their deliberations tomorrow.
Scripps News anchor Jay Stromberg gives us a recap of
this case.
The presumptive GOP nominee is charged with falsifying business records.
Prosecutors say he did so to cover up a sex
scandal to influence the 2016 election.
During the trial, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified
first,
saying he would be Trump's eyes and ears.
During the campaign, he discussed catch and kill schemes to
bury negative stories,
two involving women who said they had affairs with Trump,
which he denies, Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film
star Stormy Daniels,
who gave a graphic account to the jury.
The kangaroo court has never been anything like this that
I've ever seen.
The former president, who was required to be in court,
has maintained he's innocent. He was also held in contempt,
fined and threatened with jail time for violating a gag
order after he attacked people involved in the case.
Republican politicians showed up to support Trump,
though, both outside and inside the courthouse.
We're here in court with President Trump standing with him,
but we need you to stand with him too.
The RNC using the trial to raise money for his
re election bid.
Michael, get to sleep
last night. The case against Trump may come down to
whether the jury believes former Trump fixer Michael Cohen.
He told the jury the former president directed him to
make a
$130,000 payment to Daniels to keep her quiet.
Prosecutors say Trump's reimbursement to Cohen was disguised as a
legal expense violating state election law.
The defense casting Cohen as a liar who stood to
benefit financially.
During his testimony, Cohen even admitted to stealing from the
Trump Organization.
But prosecutors knew his credibility would be an issue and
pointed to other evidence such as emails,
phone records, and one secret recording of a conversation between
Trump and Cohen.
In it, Cohen seems to reference David Pecker paying McDougal
for her story.
I need to open up a company
for the transfer of all of that info regarding our
friend David,
You know, so that I'm going to do that right
away.
I've actually come up and I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg
about how to set the whole thing up
with, So what, are we going to pay funding?
Yes. Trump himself did not testify.
The defense called just two witnesses.
One was Robert Costello, a former adviser to Cohen who
disputed his claims.
Costello's testimony also including a dramatic moment when the judge
cleared the courtroom after he rolled his eyes at him,
scolding him for his behavior on the stand.
The trial in Manhattan could have huge implications as it
may be the only one of Trump's 4 criminal cases
to be resolved before the November election.
Our thanks to Jay Struberg at Scripps News for that
report.
Now, during today's deliberations, the jury did have two notes
that they sent to the court requesting information.
They asked for the jury instructions to be read to
them again.
And they also asked for a read back of testimony
from the former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.
You heard there in that report.
Let's get their thoughts on this near end of the
historic case.
Let's bring back in our think tank Darrell Cohen,
Molly Palmer and Josh Schaffer.
Josh, your thoughts on those questions that they have the
jury early on wanting the jury instructions.
Some states you don't get them back in the jury
room.
Yeah. And everybody's speculating. What can you read into the
fact that the jury asked quest?
Everybody needs to just slow their roll for a second.
This is a jury dealing with a novel issue.
The jury wants to have the
the instructions read back to them.
That's because they only heard those instructions once and they
were read to them in about an hour.
So the jury's gone back,
probably picked a foreman, probably gotten through the administrative stuff,
and now they're really getting down to the facts of
the case,
making a decision which I expect to actually come pretty
quickly.
They're either going to agree or they're going to disagree
to the level where the judge is going to get
involved with an Allen charge and we're going to see
movement. Molly, your thoughts on how long it may take?
When I think if there's ever a trial where the
jury wants to make sure they get it right and
make sure people see that they worked hard to get
it right, it's this one.
I agree. I think, I think this,
I think it's likely to be a lengthy deliberation.
I think that, you know,
to begin with, this is a trial that seems to
be incredibly divisive among anybody.
When you talk about it with your friends,
with your colleagues. I mean it,
it seems to me very difficult to get twelve citizens
to agree on filter innocence in this particular case.
And so I don't think we're going to see a
rush to a verdict.
I think they are going to be thorough.
I think we'll continue to see more questions.
I think these questions are interesting because
when you're asking for testimony or you're asking for the
specific instructions,
sometimes that means the jury is back there and they
maybe recall the testimony differently.
They took notes and one person thinks,
no, no, no, this, this witness,
David Pecker, said that. And the other juror says,
no, no, no, he said that.
So they're asking for some clarification from the court,
which to me might indicate already some disagreement.
So I think long deliberations for sure.
Yeah, those read backs take some time,
Darrell. I tend to agree with Molly when the judge
reads and instructions to most many of the jurors or
probably most,
it's white noise. It's
And So what do I think as a juror,
I want to know what that judge is that judge
telling me to convict?
Is that judge telling me to acquit?
That judge is really saying this is what the law
is and so many jurors just want to look at
the defendant,
look at the prosecution here with both sides had to
say and then make a decision here.
I expect a lengthy deliberation and I would not be
at all surprised,
not at all, if it was a hung jury.
I think the Democrats, regardless whether they like it or
not,
the Republicans, regardless of they like it or not,
you are a product of who you are and what
you've grown up and how you feel.
So I think the Democrats are going to hear the
evidence and say,
yes, he's guilty and that's it.
And the Republicans, closet that they may be,
are going to say no,
he's not guilty, which to me leads to a hung
jury.
Not at all surprised if that happens.
Let's talk more what ifs because if there is a
conviction in this case,
there's some logistics that have to be taken care of.
This is uncharted waters. And there's a CBS report where
they say they've spoken to an official at the jail
who said that there would be some interesting things they
have to do if a president is behind bars.
I mean, Josh, what do you think when it comes
to the Secret Service and where they would be?
Talk about novel. There's never been a president before,
a former president that's been locked up in one of
our great state or county facilities,
Rikers Island, and that's a famous one.
There should be prepared for anything.
But can you really be prepared to take someone with
their own security protective detail
into custody? How does that really work?
Now you've got these two rocks banging against each other.
I don't think there's a solution for it.
I won't be surprised if,
given the nature of the offense,
there's no jail time at all.
In my opinion, this is a nonviolent paperwork financial crime.
And that's probably a probated sentence.
Probated if it's house arrest,
any campaign. I mean, this,
this still would be extremely novel.
And you wonder if it's going to trample on any
rights.
Yeah, I mean, exactly. But we have to also remember
the judge Merchant has even said when when we've been
addressing some of these contempt issues,
I don't want to put you in jail.
And Josh is right. When you look at this,
these particular charges, as numerous as they may be in
this indictment,
for the most part, somebody who has no criminal history,
who gets convicted of these type of low level kind
of white collar
crimes does not go to prison and and often is
not put on house arrest.
So I think the likelihood even in the face of
a absolute conviction on every count of him ending up
in prison is very,
very slim to none. However,
it is going to complicate things.
I think even even if you're,
you know, checking in with a probation officer,
whatever terms and conditions may come with a sentence is
going to have some sort of implication as you try
and campaign and perhaps take office.
If anybody can make being on probation a positive,
it's former President Trump. I see this as
it's very Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing,
which I think the major part of the country believes.
Whether they love him or hate him,
this is a so minor in terms of the criminal
system that why are we taking the time to do
this?
I think that former President Trump has used this and
we've talked about it
in a very positive way.
The more people attack him,
the more he loves it.
The more he seems to love it,
the more he attacks back.
So I don't see him being incarcerated if the jury
finds him guilty, but I do see this as a
very positive thing in his mind,
not in mind, but in his,
because I'm being picked on and I want to make
America great again.
So he would say it's in the hands of a
New York City jury right now.
We will see when they come back with deliberations tomorrow
how long this will be.
Thank you to the Think Tank for being with us,
Josh Schiffer, Molly Palmer and Darrell Cohen.
You all have a good evening.