All Episodes
Previous Next
May 30, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show
34:13
Jury Requests Analyzed - May 29th, Hour 1

Sean reviews the jury requests for additional information that came through today's Trump trial.  What does it all mean?  Sean has his two cents.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
Thank you, Scott Shannon, and thanks to all of you for being with us.
Here is our toll-free telephone number.
If you want to be a part of the program, it's 800-941-Sean.
If you want to join us for three hours and 38 minutes, the jury has been deliberating, post getting jury instructions from Judge Juan Mershon.
Probably the most corrupt, abusively biased judge I've ever seen in my life, but that's a story we'll get into in some specificity and detail.
And as I said from the beginning of this case, Donald Trump cannot get a fair trial in New York.
We've already seen this in the civil trial where a judge named Erdogan, you know, would just locked into this insane valuation of Mar-a-Lago at $18 million.
And we've gone over that in great specificity and great detail.
But what really just is, what are you saying in my ear, Linda?
Text.
Oh, text.
You want me to stop my monologue?
Well, I was trying to be incognito about it, but so much for that.
We just wanted to alert you that the defendants and the jurors were just called back into the room.
We don't know if it's a verdict or a note from the jury or what, but we're just alerting you to that, sir.
Okay, what we know is that the jurors and the defendants are back in the courtroom.
Okay.
I have no idea why that would be.
And if it is, maybe they have a verdict.
They haven't announced it yet.
If they do, usually you're given time.
I do know that all the parties were staying on location at the courtroom.
In other words, Donald Trump did not go back to Trump Tower and that all parties remained in the courtroom.
And if the verdict is backed this quickly, I would not expect a good verdict.
That's my take, but I don't think it's a verdict this early.
We'll see.
And anyway, the jury must act unanimously.
But what really happened here, and one of the most amazing things, usually they would send notes to a judge and not be brought back into the courtroom and not bring the defendant back into the courtroom.
I have no idea what's going on here.
Could be a verdict.
And if it is, we'll bring it to you live as it happens.
But anyway, so one thing in particular, and the jury instructions were given today, and they were as I expected.
But in the lead up to this is we saw the absolute destruction, especially of the prosecution's case and their key witness, their star witness, and that would be Michael Cohn.
He was just eviscerated and gutted when a cross-examination took place and exposed in a lie, for example, on the issue of the phone call with Keith Schiller and the kid that apparently had been priming him, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So where did you see that, by the way?
Because it's not on Fox yet.
I'm looking.
It is.
It says the jury is currently deliberating.
It's a prosecution of the prosecution and the Trump team are back in court.
Because the jury may have a note or the jurors may be being brought back in.
They don't know yet.
Okay.
Well, you said the jurors were brought back in.
Potentially being brought back in for a jury note or a potential verdict.
Nobody knows very much right now.
We're on jury watch.
It would usually be a note if we're going to look at that.
But if the, it sounds to me like a question is being asked.
That's what it sounds like at this.
That's my best question.
I know what the question is.
Why are we all here?
This is so dumb.
That would be my question.
That would be, I wish that was the case.
I wish you were on the jury.
Oh, listen, if I was on that jury, I'd be the forewoman out of the park.
Oh, I'm sure you would.
You'd have everybody unanimous verdict, not guilty.
Absolutely.
All right.
Anyway, so the prosecution, the Trump team are back in the courtroom.
I have spies there, and hopefully I'll get a text or two and find out what's actually going on there.
All right, now, before the jury, you know, entered, remember, the idea that this judge now, and I kept using the analogy that he's taken the scales of justice, and he's been placing cinder blocks on it because he had to save this case from the prosecution because the prosecution got destroyed, and their star witness got destroyed.
And the entire case was in jeopardy, and basically everything that they were arguing.
Now, remember, we can't negate the other issues that are involved here that are relevant, you know, because I found it pretty interesting that Donald Trump, and I'll play this later in the program today, you know, he didn't sound particularly optimistic today saying that even Mother Teresa couldn't beat these charges based on what has happened in the final days of this case.
And the final days of this case, remember, you had an FEC chairman who wanted to testify on what the actual law was, and they prevented him from doing that.
Bradley Smith is his name.
I've interviewed him.
He said no crime was committed.
That's why the FEC didn't go after him.
That's why Cy Vance didn't go after Donald Trump on this.
That's why the SDNY didn't go after him on this.
That's why even Joe Biden's weaponized justice department did not go after him on this.
So there were reasons for all of that.
But the case, as it began to fall apart, we began to see, oh, okay, now we're beginning to see the true colors of Judge Mershot.
And, you know, we did see it every time that the defense would object, that objection was overruled.
And, you know, he gave very different treatment and all the latitude in the world to the prosecution in this case.
But the fact that he says that, oh, we're not going to listen to Bradley Smith, an expert on the law, and that's that novel legal theory that they've been using that somehow they're going to bypass the statute of limitations on this, what would otherwise be a misdemeanor bookkeeping error, and we're going to turn this into a campaign finance violation, something that had never happened before, which is why the judge had to give, as part of his jury instructions today, the option to only convict on misdemeanors.
He doesn't give them that option.
He can't give them that option because the statute of limitations have run out on that option.
Yeah, they're now reporting on Fox that it's unclear if there is a jury note.
If there is a note, usually it'll get reported because somebody will leak it.
So we will know probably within this hour.
And then the judge saying, well, that will be my job, that the parties are not to go into what the law is.
This is a court of law.
These are lawyers representing, in this case, a defendant, Donald Trump, who's presumed innocent.
You know, this should worry everybody that it's only going to be his interpretation of the law.
You know, the fact that Steinglass denied Stormy Daniels was trying to extort Trump.
Well, one must go back to her January 10, 2018 letter where she said, to whom it may concern, I recently became aware certain news outlets are alleging that I had a sexual and or romantic affair with Donald Trump many, many years ago.
I'm stating with complete clarity that this is absolutely false.
My involvement with Donald Trump was limited to a few public appearances and nothing more.
When I met Donald Trump, he was gracious, professional, a complete gentleman to me and everyone in my presence.
Rumors that I received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false.
If indeed I did have a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you wouldn't be reading about it in the news.
You'd be reading about it in my book.
But the fact of the matter is these stories are not true.
Okay.
All right.
It is a jury note.
We have that confirmed.
All right.
We'll find out what that jury note is.
That means, I guess, questions have arisen as to the law.
And I assume that Judge Mershon will put more cinder blocks on the side of the prosecution.
But then we have the issue of Bob Costello, who would have impeached pretty much all of the testimony of Michael Cohn and said none of it is true and none of it can be taken as truth.
And if he was allowed to even go deeper, he would have implicated the DA himself because he spent an hour and a half, he says, on a Zoom call saying that he laid out all the exculpatory evidence before the case was brought to the grand jury, which would have obligated Alvin Bragg and his team to bring that information to the grand jury, which is a violation of the law in New York.
Now, Steinglass just dismissed Cohn's admitted theft of the Trump organization.
Well, you can't blame him.
He felt like he was done wrong here, and he struggles, amounted to, he earned millions and millions of dollars, millions of dollars in this case for crying out loud as a result of his working for Donald Trump between books and podcasts, et cetera, et cetera.
But then it got worse from there because then he has the whole meltdown, clear the courtroom incident with Bob Costello.
And what else are we saying?
Jury requests Cohn and Pecker testimony.
That's what they're asking for.
I don't know why they'd want Cohn testimony.
Okay, you just sent it to me.
Hang on.
Let me take a look at it.
All right, here we are.
So the jury request number one, we the jury request David Pecker's testimony regarding phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in investor meeting.
Two, jury request two, Pecker testimony about a decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of McDougal's life rights.
Three, Pecker testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting.
Four, Michael Cohn testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting.
Okay, I'm not sure if you can read anything into that.
I really don't.
But anyway, back to the judge in this case.
You know, they go into great, great, you know, detail on things that had absolutely no relevance in this case.
It was, you know, the fact that the judge let Stormy Daniels drone on and on, talking about dead people and salacious sexual escapades without stopping it is just pretty unbelievable to me.
And the prosecutors, you know, just said Trump gave his orders.
What do you mean Trump gave his orders to Alan Weiselberg, who the defense didn't want to call the prosecution didn't want to call because he would have contradicted Cohn.
They're the ones that didn't call him.
And he's not far away because he's in Rikers Island at 76 years of age.
And the worst part of what happened yesterday, and this is where the big cinder blocks were put on the scales of justice, nothing from the judge and nothing from the defense.
The jury was told dozens of times by the prosecution that the payments were campaign violations, and the judge allowed that false claim to go uncontradicted again and again and again yesterday.
You know, they're out there saying that Trump lied, denying that they were campaign contributions, and the judge treated all of that as argument.
And Steinglass making the statement of law is contradicted by a wide variety of experts, and there's been no evidence that that case was made.
And by allowing prosecutors to repeatedly state that these transactions were campaign violations, Mershon turned this into, you know, basically, you know, a slam-dunk case against Donald Trump.
Allowed prosecutors to quote even from books on how Trump said you should attack those that attack you.
You know, Steinglass refers to a tweet from Trump and says that's intending to threaten a witness.
The judge finally sustained the objection, which he was not willing to do.
I mean, they're basically able to act with utter impunity.
I kind of like the way that it was described by Jonathan Turley, and I think he's right in his description of this.
Mershon seems to have kept the defense in a small neighborhood and allowing the prosecutors to go globetrotting with what is prejudicial and improper references that they were able to get away with again and again and again.
Then it all culminates today in jury instructions.
In other words, the judge said the jurors, you know, delivering a verdict, he said there's no need to agree on what has occurred.
They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.
He's talking about three choices.
In other words, they could split four people believe he's guilty for reason A, four people believe for reason B. Four people believe for reason C, and the judge would still treat them unanimously, meaning a unanimous guilty verdict.
There's a big problem with that judge instruction.
And the problem is, is that jurors do not have, he's saying jurors don't have to agree unanimously on what crime Trump committed.
And that is all cinderblocks, again, on the scales of justice, because the U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimity in jury verdicts is absolutely required under the Sixth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment of our Constitution.
And that requirement extends to all issues.
You don't get to say, well, I think he's guilty for reason A, and I think he's guilty for reason B, and I think he's guilty for reason C.
To find somebody guilty, as per the U.S. Supreme Court, jurors must always agree without dissent on every necessary element of the purported crime.
This is an indispensable feature of jury trials.
And again, more cinder blocks on the scales of justice in this courtroom.
And maybe Trump in the end is right.
Maybe Trump is right.
Maybe Trump can't, you know, maybe Mother Teresa herself, you know, couldn't get a fair verdict in this case.
She couldn't beat these charges.
You know, but it is amazing.
And I said this on Fox and Friends this morning, and I'll reiterate it now.
I don't care what the outcome is in this case because it will be overturned on appeal.
There's way too many avenues on appeal.
That's number one, but that may happen after the election.
But number two, I don't think it's going to impact this election at all.
$130,000 NDA from eight years ago, just like Mar-a-Lago is worth closer to $1 billion than $18 million.
I'll show you all the property.
I've put it on TV before.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, we'll get our legal panel up and running and going.
We'll check in with Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, former Arizona AG, Mark Bernovich, will be here as well.
Got a note from a lawyer friend of mine.
You know, do you read anything or glean anything from these notes?
Quote, nothing.
Reading tea leaves.
I'm guessing the jurors are simply reviewing testimony in chronological order, which would be a logical thing to do.
They now have been deliberating four hours and six minutes.
But yeah, I think Cinderblocks have been placed on the scales of justice, as I've been going through in great detail in this case.
I want to remind you, everything is so expensive.
And by the way, regardless of the outcome, this is what this campaign is going to be about.
It's going to be about Biden's horrific economy, Biden inflation, Biden gas prices, Biden's open borders.
By the way, I read 30,000 Chinese nationals crossing our border just for the first six months of this year.
Can you believe it?
Unbelievable.
Tens of thousands from China, Russia, Iran, let's see, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, all the stands you can think of.
It's pretty unbelievable.
And none of them vetted.
And yeah, all of this now impacting the lives of pretty much every American.
But anyway, things are really, really tough for so many of our fellow Americans.
Everything is so expensive.
By the time you simply fill up your car, buy groceries, there's not a lot left if you have anything left.
If you're not putting bare necessities on your credit card, because a lot of people are doing that, and that means you're paying high-interest credit card debt.
Now, one good piece of news is the average homeowner has seen their home appreciate in value about 8.7% on average year over year.
And so if you're a homeowner, American Financing can help you.
And interest rates for mortgages are, you know, three times lower than the average credit card rate.
And that means you can consolidate your debt and save a fortune.
Right now, American Financing is saving their customers on average $854 a month.
And they're using cash in their home to pay off high-interest credit card debt.
Now, that's like a $10,000 a year raise.
That could be the difference between being in the red every month and being in the black.
Anyway, you can make a free call, get a no-obligation consultation.
They never charge any upfront fee.
They're non-commissioned people you'll be talking to.
They're full-time employees.
Anyway, and just call.
You have nothing to lose.
See if they can save you money every month.
866-615-9200.
866-615-9200.
On the web, it's AmericanFinancing.net.
NMLS 182-334, NMLS ConsumerAccess.org.
APR for rates in the 5 star at 6.799% for well-qualified borrowers.
Call 866-615-9200 for details about credit costs and terms.
So the way this is going to play out with these four requests and questions of the jury is they will be brought back into the courtroom and they will be read back the testimony that they are requesting.
So we're going to watch that very, very closely.
And see what happens here.
The judge went into great specificity in terms of jury instructions.
One of the things he did do is kind of encourage the jurors to, oh, just come back to me.
But this is where the judge now has crossed another line and put another 10 cinder blocks on the scales of justice when he said that, you know, jurors have the ability, you know, you don't have to agree on what occurred.
You can just agree or think that a crime occurred, but you don't have to agree on what you believe the crime was or the reason for the crime.
They can disagree on what the crime was among three choices.
You got to be kidding me.
So you could have four jurors picking option number A, four choosing option B, and four choosing option C, and the judge would still treat all of them like a unanimous verdict, which is beyond outrageous and unprecedented.
And, you know, unfortunately, we have a Supreme Court that has ruled on this very issue and upheld that unanimity in the jury and a jury verdict is required under the Sixth and Seventh Amendment.
That requirement extends to all issues.
In other words, if you want to find someone guilty, jurors always agree without dissent on every necessary element of the purported crime.
Now, that is a huge feature as it relates to jury trials.
You know, it's pretty unbelievable to me that this judge, again, just making up stuff as he goes along.
Why?
Because this judge wants to get the verdict that he wants, and he's working very hard and has been working hard to throw this lifeline to the prosecution because they did such a horrible job with their star witnesses.
Unbelievable times.
Unbelievable.
But, you know, these are the times we're living in.
It should shock any principled jurist.
Jurors, you know, the idea that they don't have to agree unanimously on what crime Trump allegedly committed, I mean, is so antithetical to what our own Constitution and our own Supreme Court has actually ruled on.
A pretty amazing time that we're living in.
You know, Alan Dershowitz said something very interesting.
He said, and he's been very good on this case, and he's a liberal Democrat.
And he said, if there's a conviction here, it will change the justice system forevermore.
And he said it will weaponize the system.
It will mean that both sides will try to use the legal system as a way of winning elections.
If there's an acquittal, maybe at least we can say the jury system works.
But if there's a conviction or even a hung jury, it will show the prosecution benefits from bringing a case which is, in this case, no crime at all.
And he was in the courtroom, by the way, and he saw the meltdown as it relates to Bob Costello.
It's insane.
And if you want to know where the media stands, now, let me make a prediction.
If there's a guilty verdict, it's going to be like an orgasmic experience for them.
They won't be able to contain their giddiness, their happiness, all that they've tried to do from Russia, Russia, Russia, stormy, stormy, stormy.
Impeachment one, impeachment two, January 6th, democracy imperil.
All the arguments they want to make, they will feel they finally got them on a $130,000 non-disclosure agreement that was literally, I guess, on the ledger, put down what it rightly was, a legal expense.
Michael Cohn testified that he told people he did all of this on his own, all of it.
And he said that, yeah, I told all these people that, but then claims he didn't tell them that.
But he is a convicted, admitted liar, and now thief on top of it.
What's amazing is, and this is how out of touch and corrupt the media is, and the mob is.
You know, Katie Couric, charter member of the Trump derangement, get Trump media mob, admitting she's shocked.
She's surprised that Joe Biden's lawfare strategy against Trump has not worked.
I mean, here she is, liberal, former news anchor Katie Couric.
Not that anyone really cares what she has to say, but expressing her shock that former President Trump appears to be gaining popularity due to his legal troubles rather than being sunk by them.
Quote, it seems that Donald Trump has the edge right now, despite all of his legal woes and the fact that, you know, he's on trial in Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohn, and he seems to be surprisingly gaining momentum, not losing it.
Then admitted that some of Biden's polling numbers are a result of his refusal or inability to do more media interviews.
It would behoove him to get out there more.
Okay, he was out there.
Linda, I sent you a picture that James gave me of the crowd in Philadelphia.
Apparently, he was playing the race car today again.
He's trying desperately to shore up his dramatically falling base of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and young people.
We actually have audio of him, Sean, trying to put words together.
Do you want to hear it?
Oh, shocking, trying to put words together.
Yeah, sure.
We'll never forget lying around.
And us him lying around, actually.
They're trying to erase black history.
We're going to rape black history because it's American history.
Is it wonderful?
Wonderful.
But Joe Biden was on the view saying that, oh, he's going to show America just how smart he is in this debate.
I'm like, okay, I don't know.
How much Red Bull can Joe actually drink before a debate?
And he's not going to have the benefit of the teleprompter that he did have at the State of the Union address, where he was so jacked up, he didn't even allow the Speaker of the House to, you know, my high privilege, distinct, honor, and privilege to introduce the President of the United States.
Blah, blah, blah, one stands and claps.
No, Joe just went right into his speech and he spoke to the okay, I'm done.
Let's go.
But I'm sure it was just Red Bull.
Or maybe he was just excited to see everybody.
I don't know.
But you want to see how smart Joe Biden is going to be during the debate?
Well, the debate, listen to Joe Biden.
But I think the American people deserve a debate because you need to see your choices.
You need to see Trump and you need to see the president and you need to see the differences.
And my husband's, and you're going to see how smart he is and the experience he has.
And then you'll see somebody who, like you're saying, I'm going to use Joey's words, can't put a sentence together.
And everything is beautiful and it's one tremendous political coverage.
Looks on some of the political players and some of the let me ask a rhetorical question.
no anyways and here's something i'm sure the mob and the media will ignore The First Lady of the United States saying that this election, Americans are going to choose good over evil.
Now, I've known this for a long time, that conservatives are viewed as like a dark force, and they have this sense that they alone have a monopoly on all virtue.
But if you don't agree with them, you know, you don't have any, and that you're basically the enemy.
That's what she's saying, that we're what?
If you don't agree with Joe, you're evil.
Listen.
We are going to meet people where they are.
We're going to go to college campuses.
We're going to go to just every state that we can get into.
I've been traveling every single day.
Joe has been traveling as much as possible.
And we're not going to take anything for granted.
And those polls are going to turn.
I'm confident of it.
Because as time goes on, and as people start to focus a little bit more about what's at stake and start to become educated on the issues and the differences between the two men, I believe that Americans are going to choose good over evil.
Evil.
Good over evil.
Wow.
You know, what happened when Donald Trump said the media is the enemy of the people?
Oh, they lost.
I don't think that's the big talking point of that cut, though.
Did you hear what she almost said?
She said, I'm traveling every day, and Joe is trying to get it.
Traveling as much as he can.
As much as he can.
Or as much as he's able.
Who knows?
You know, she is a doctor of education.
She's probably a wordsmith, I'm sure.
Everything's at stake this November.
She said, we'll lose all of our rights if there's another Republican on the Supreme Court.
No, we won't lose it.
We'll get into every state that we can.
You're the first lady.
Where can't you go?
Give me a break.
She can go to every state that she wants.
But I mean, the fact that the judge allowed this jury, allowed this prosecutor to mislead the jury and just outright lie to them.
I mean, and the fact that they were allowed to, I mean, the fact that they had to rehabilitate Cohn spoke volumes.
But then later, they're just allowed to pretty much carte blanche to just draw out allegations and lay out Donald Trump's guilty of election fraud, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And it went on and on and on.
And it's a false claim.
And it was allowed to stand as just uncontradicted.
You know, that these are campaign violations.
No, that's what the jury is supposed to decide here.
You know, you forget that in America, the accused have a right to know what they're being accused of.
You know, these are fundamental concepts enshrined in our Constitution and our Fifth Amendment, our Sixth Amendment.
And yet we're now learning on the fly what the prosecution has been doing all these weeks at the end of the trial.
You know, as far as this election law violation, you know, you've got to understand here, they're really pointing to a federal election law crime.
And how they're doing this is still unclear.
But, of course, the judge didn't bring any of this, you know, allow any discussion.
Only I will be the one that interprets the law.
Well, it's a court of law.
We have experts.
Bradley Smith would have been a really good expert.
I interviewed him, and he would have told the jury that it's not a crime.
But the judge, of course, cinder blocks on the scales of justice, not going to let that happen.
The Biden donor judge that was selected in this case.
I mean, you just got to go back to the very, very beginning here and all the things that we now know about this trial.
And everything has got to be understood here.
The judge is a Biden donor.
I told you from day one, you could not get a fair trial in New York regardless and regardless of the outcome.
And I still hold out some hope of a hung jury.
I don't believe an acquittal is even on the table, to be very honest with you, based on the jury and jury selection and the venue in which Donald Trump is being tried.
I think the best hope is that he can get a hung jury.
Pretty unbelievable.
What else did we learn?
The DA ran on a get Trump platform.
We learned Costello had exculpatory information purposely withheld from the grand jury involved in indicting Trump.
We know the judge's actions against Costello.
He lost his mind.
Bradley Smith, who could have explained the law, wasn't allowed to fully testify.
Jury instructions, exactly what I predicted they would be.
Unconstitutional, which I didn't predict, but I predicted they would be biased.
There's a reason the DOJ, the FEC, the SDNY, Alvin Bragg's predecessor, Cy Vance and Bragg himself initially didn't want this case.
The misdemeanor whose statute of limitations had long passed, a novel legal theory that allows, what, a city jurisdiction to upcharge to a federal election felony, a star witness, an admitted liar, felon, and now thief.
NDAs are not illegal.
Catch and kill, not illegal.
Stormy can drone on about anything.
All the salations innuendo you want.
Talk about dead people.
No problem.
But, you know, the defense was in a box.
Unbelievable.
There's so many reasons if there is a guilty verdict that'll be overturned on appeal, but I'm telling you, it's not going to impact the election.
I stand by that.
I believe that part with all my heart.
But it doesn't make it any better, does it?
And I tell you this.
I'll tell you this.
Assuming that Republicans win this next election, I would never want Republicans or conservatives to ever do this to any Democrat because I believe in our Constitution.
We should have fidelity to our Constitution.
Sean Hennedy.
All right, as we roll along, well, we're waiting for the judge to get back in the courtroom, and there's going to be a readback, four separate requests that have come in from the jury, which we've gone over in great specificity and great detail.
And we will find out, you know, what the judge has to say about it.
What they're looking for in a readback is we, the jury, request David Pecker's testimony regarding phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in the investor meeting.
Pecker testimony about decision not to finalize the fund assignment of McDougall's life rights.
Pecker testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting.
Michael Cohn's testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting.
So those readbacks should be happening in the next hour.
▲
Export Selection