deliberations about to resume in donald trump's criminal trial. what the jury is asking to hear for a second time will be revealed in a matter of moments. stay tuned for that. good morning. could be quite a day. we'll see. i'm bill hemmer in new york city. >> dana: i woke up ready to go. i'm dana perino and this is "america's newsroom." we have a lot to get to. former president trump heading downtown for day two of deliberations. trump and his team must remain at the courthouse as the jury decides whether to convict him of 34 counts of falsifying business records. >> bill: the former president's fate in the hands of 12 new yorkers. they deliberated 4 1/2 hours day one and ended the day with a few requests from the judge. >> dana: they want to rehear testimony from david pecker and michael cohen and then they also asked the judge to repeat his instructions. those things are expected to happen when court resumes less than 30 minutes from now. >> bill: our legal team is ready to go. the trio is standing by. first eric shawn outside the courthouse as well. let's begin with you, eric, good morning. >> good morning, bill and dana. the jurors are starting at the very beginning with the first witness, david pecker. it seems they're trying to determine exactly what donald trump did. after 4 1/2 hours of testimony of deliberations yesterday, they asked for the first testimony about the key meeting between trump, pecker, the "national enquirer" publisher and trump's lawyer, michael cohen. the d.a. says at that sit-down that's where the alleged scheme started to protect trump's presidential campaign and illegally influence the 2016 presidential election. the meeting was held at trump tower on august 2, 0152, months after trump lost his election bid. he told the jury last month at that meeting donald trump and michael, they asked me what i can do and what to do to help the campaign. i would be your eyes and ears. if i hear anything negative about yourself or anything about women selling stories, i would notify michael cohen. cohen's testimony three weeks later backed up pecker's testimony. what he said was that he would keep an eye out for anything negative about mr. trump and that he would be able to help us. cohen also said trump told pecker directly this, the two of you should work together and anything negative that comes, you let michael know. he will handle it. the jury will also hear the phone call that trump -- about the phone call that trump had with pecker about buying mcdougal's story with nearly a year long affair with trump. pecker told trump he should buy the story so it wouldn't get out. what's so striking and notable about the requests, the jury wants to try to find out exactly the testimony concerning the former president's alleged role in this. what exactly did he do? the fact that at that trump tower meeting he allegedly told pecker and cohen to work together and in that phone call with pecker he allegedly asked him about buying mcdougal's story and part of what they will be parsing through in terms of the facts of this case. we'll see more when they start reading the read back later on this morning. >> bill: thanks for teeing it up. >> dana: want to bring in andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney, shannon bream, chief legal correspondent and trey gowdy former federal prosecutor. fresh they are. let's go ladies first with your thoughts, shannon, this morning as we get ready and president trump is on his way down. how do you wake up thinking? >> when you think about what the jury asked to hear reread back and again we've talked about it. if one or multiple jurors want it. it is taking a long time. a couple of hours yesterday. they didn't get to hear it. they can hear it this morning. the judge wanted that fresh along with the jury instructions. do they want the whole thing? it was 55 pages long or is there something specific they want the judge to tell them about with respect to the law? that could be very telling to us if they want another definition or something clarified for them. it could they will us a lot where the deliberations are going. one of the things for the defense is if a payment is made and could have been made absent the candidacy it doesn't draw this into potentially an election law situation. if the trump team could successfully convince the jurors this payment would have been paid any way because president trump didn't want anyone to hear about it that's the good instruction for the defense. we'll see what instruction the jury wanted to hear. >> this is a quote from the judge's jury instruction. if the payment would have been made in the absence of the candidacy the payment should not be treated as a contribution. the reason that could be important is because didn't pecker say that they did deals long before stormy daniels and karen mcdougal and his candidacy to be the republican nominee? >> well, they did say that, bill. but i have to say i think that's an insidious instruction in this sense. this test of whether something would have been a campaign expense or an expense that qualifies under fica as a campaign expense irrespective whether the campaign existed should have been designed to have brad smith come in and explain to the jury what the concept of a campaign expenditure is. the jury didn't hear that testimony. smith would have explained to them that if you have like a non-disclosure agreement like you have in this context, the fact that stormy daniels was able to use the campaign to put pressure on trump because he happened to be a candidate didn't make the nda a campaign expense. she could have asserted pressure on him over his fear of embarrassing his family, over maybe blowing up a big tv deal, a big real estate deal. the jury didn't get that testimony. here is what the jury got. michael cohen was asked by the prosecutors if it hadn't been for the 2016 election, would you have paid stormy daniels? he said no. the jury thinks that instruction means that testimony from cohen, that if there hadn't been the campaign he wouldn't have paid it. so they will think it is a campaign expenditure. that instruction is designed to be explained by somebody who knows what he is talking about about campaign law and they didn't get to hear that in this case. >> bill: the president has arrived and we saw him a moment ago. eric trump is there. we did not get a list of those who would be in court today. todd blanche, his attorney, boris epstein. jason miller, we see him as well and others, maybe carolyn leavitt in the green top. his coms director. the regular group right now. >> dana: can i put up call for number three. the judge's jury instruction has me the most confused and as people settled in was so confusing. unanimity. he says although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. what is he talking about? >> trey gowdy. >> yeah, yes, ma'am, i lost you for a second but got the gist of your question. you have to be unanimous in your lack of unanimity. i've never seen that in a criminal case before. this is to me a due process violation to say that extra crime is like a buffet, like going to the golden corral, pick what you want it to be. andy and shannon and i were debating does it have to be one of the three things that judge laid out? can it be a crime in north dakota that nobody has thought about? it is bizarre. i've never seen it before. with respect to jury instructions and these questions, dana, what the lawyers are looking for is hope. i went back and reread this last night as both the prosecutor and defense attorney. what do i hope the jury wants to get from this? there is frankly something for both sides in the testimony they want replayed. i think there is a short story, the incident at the bridge where you were hopeful the hope will break and you live. that's what lawyers are doing now. they are hoping the jury wants to hear the good part for them. >> bill: all right. we're watching the room now. the 15th floor of the supreme court building in new york and the president will be walking through those doors in a matter of minutes and we'll bring you his pre-court comments in moments. stand by for that. shannon, here is another one for you. i think this goes to michael cohen, all right, number two. if you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness's entire testimony. or you may disregard so much of it as you find untruthful and accept what you found truthful and accurate. this is why you guys go to law school for years. you know, convert that into english for all of us. basically if the jury comes back today and they say we want to know the part that deals with michael cohen from the judge, that might be one of the clues that trey gowdy is talking about there. that would fit in that category, i believe. >> it could be. remember, the prosecution told those jurors you don't have to rely on michael cohen. we have all kinds of mountains of other evidence. we didn't see it. we saw other testimony. i would not say mountains of other corroborating evidence. everybody knows cohen is the key, heart and lynch pin to the case. when there was testimony from him and others that he lied to his wife, his kids, his banker, state and federal judges, to congress, both houses of congress, these are things that he has admitted to and been caught doing. so the jury has got to weigh out what they want to take from him if anything. those instructions mean you can completely disregard him. if he isn't a good, credible witness or parts of what he was saying was the truth you can consider those. how they feel about michael cohen and his credibility is key to this whole thing. >> dana: last night from president trump left court he talked about key witnesses who were not called. let's listen to him here. >> a lot of key witnesses were not called. look at the list. look at the players. you know -- you can take five or six of them. why didn't they call those witnesses? they would have been on our side. and it's a shame. in particular one witness who is now suffering greatly because of what is happening because of the viciousness of these thugs. they are vicious people what they've done to that person. you know who i am talking about. they didn't call him as a witness. >> dana: talking about the former cfo for the corporation andrew weisselberg at ryker's right now. still a conversation and controversy about that decision. i'm wondering how you think about it before we see president trump hopefully give comments before court today. >> you know, dana, trey and i were looking this morning for the standard uncalled witness charge that judges usually give in a case like this and it is not in the jury instructions. we wanted to make sure. here is my theory for what it's worth, if weisselberg had helpful testimony to give for allen bragg, he would be here. he would have been taken from ryker's and brought to testify. the only person -- what the state tried to suggest was that weisselberg was being kept off the stamp by trump because he had a severance agreement with a condition that requires him not to take positions against trump. but the agreement itself explicit says if you get subpoenaed by a court you have to testify and come to testify. the reason he didn't take the stand had nothing to do with trump. the reason he didn't take the stand was because bragg wouldn't immunize him and trump can't call him because weisselberg is afraid that if he testifies favorably to trump, bragg will indict him again for perjury. the only person who could have gotten weisselberg here to testify is bragg. the prosecutor is the only one who can immunize a witness and he could have come in and given his version of events. you can be sure, if his version of events backed up cohen, he would be here. >> bill: i think turley yesterday said he is getting vertigo from this. i want our viewers to know the three of you and turley and lydia and kerri urbahn are on an email chain throughout the day and reading hundreds of emails from you guys. we're not trained-in-law and we are confused. i can't imagine how viewers are feeling at home. i have no clue as to where the jury is on this. we're watching that door. we'll hear from the former president in a matter of moments. stand by. terrific work down there. there must be an app for this somewhere. take it from legal talk to plain english. >> president biden: trump continues to lie that black unemployment was at a record low. that happened on my watch and we'll keep it going. >> bill: trump awaits his fate and president joe biden on the trail trying to win over african-american voters. we'll take you back to that. >> dana: lets than an hour away whether learning former president trump is immune from prosecution from another case. we wait to see whether trump speaks before going into court. we'll be right back. (thinking: eddie, no frasier, frank... frank?) fred! how are you?! fred... fuel up to 7 brain health indicators, including your memory. join the neuriva brain health challenge. (restaurant noise) [announcer] introducing allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. allison! over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. my daughter is mila. she is 19 months old. she is a little ray of sunshine. one of the happiest babies you'll probably ever meet. children with down syndrome typically have a higher risk for developing acute myeloid leukemia or just leukemia in general. and here we are. saint jude children's research hospital works day after day to find cures and save the lives of children with cancer and other life threatening diseases. she was referred to saint jude at 11 months. they knew what to do as soon as they got her diagnosis. they already had her treatment plan drawn out and they were like, this is what we're going to do. this is how long it's going to take. this is how long in between. this place is like a family to us now. like, i can't say enough how grateful we are to be here. answer but i am gagged but i can't talk about this ridiculous case hurting our country so badly. some of the reviews from yesterday are -- everyone is against this case. i haven't seen one legal scholar or expert in the law saying that this case should have been brought. it should not have been filed. it should have been filed seven years ago. it's seven years old. federal elections turned it down. southern district turned it down. bragg turned it down and rejove nighted it when i was running for office. at the request of biden. the editors of the national review say acquit trump. bragg failed to prove his charges. totally failed. gregg jarrett, who exactly was defrauded? voters who had already voted. they already voted. all of this stuff came in after the election. then you say what about hillary with the dossier, what about all the other things that go? this is nothing. this is nothing. what about all of the corruption, the voter fraud that you've seen over the last year on behalf of the democrat and nobody talks about it. this is ridiculous. this is called running for office. gregg jarrett, the government, which received full payment on all taxable income. the government, by the way, received full payment. taxes were paid in full. they may comment on that. even if the taxes were paid in full the federal elections commission concluded the money paid did not constitute a campaign contribution under the law. remember, this judge wouldn't allow it. he is a very conflicted judge. you don't want to cover about what the conflict was, i'm not allowed to talk about it because of a gag order. what stuff does he really not want to talk about? there was no fraud, no conspiracy. without a primary crime there can be no secondary crime. weaponizing statutes. no law has been broken. that was gregg jarrett. another legal analyst for cnn. the crime is not easy to explain or to understand. it is just not understandable. in other words, there is no crime. this is cnn. kathryn christian from msnbc, legal analyst. it is difficult because it is a very nuanced argument. it has never been prosecuted before. this is an argument that has never been prosecuted before. hopefully it will never be prosecuted again. andy mccarthy, this is anything but standard. it is the opposite of standard. the idea they don't have to agree on what the other crime is. we spent six weeks wondering what is the other crime? what is the other crime? and at the end the thud we get is this. there are three or four of them and you can pick one or the other and they don't have to agree on anything. what he is saying it is so corrupt nobody has heard of a thing like this. you pick them and you don't have to be -- even though in a criminal case you don't have to be unanimous. give a couple of votes. the judge unfortunately is corrupt. judge jeanine pirro, no one has heard of this. it is like there is a, b, or c. this is a kangaroo court. unheard of. never seen anything like it. i've done it for 32 years. i'm a state prosecutor so i know what i'm talking about. i'm not a federal judge i'm a county judge just like merchan. this is new york law and this -- he is 100% wrong. he is wrong is what jeanine pirro, very smart woman. jonathan turley, this is becoming a game on where is the crime? smart guy, where is the crime? mike davis, the u.s. would sanction any country for doing this. i think that's good. i think that's good. steve hilton, seems every day the proceedings go on, the judge and prosecutor go out of their way to prove trump's point. i guess they are proving my point. that's why i write some of these things that are very sad. mark levin, this stall inist-like case has prevented president trump running for office. has prevented him from campaigning. he is unable to campaign because he has been in a courthouse for five weeks and yet we just had a poll came out, npr, trump is 54, biden is 42 with independents. they said this is the single best poll trump has with independents. trump's largest lead among independent voters, 44-28. junior is way, way down. but it is 44. junior is extremely liberal, by the way. extremely radical left, he seems to be hurting biden probably a little bit. that's it. it's a disgrace. the millions and millions of dollars that are spent daily on this case. outside it looks like fort knox. never seen so many policemen. in columbia university you can plant a tent in front of the main door, no problem. nyu put up your tent. don't worry about it. over here i just want to say that this is a very sad day for america. the whole world is watching and a very sad day for new york. i've gone through two of these trials already. with the same kind of a judge. it is all rigged, the whole system is rigged. judge engoron was overturned five times in my case and will be overturned again. we were treated very badly. the outside world is watching and the outside world won't bring their business to new york. that's going to cost the city trillions and the state trillions and trillions of dollars. businesses are leaving. and people are fleeing. y