Return to Transcripts main page
THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER
Jury Reaches Verdict on Eight Counts in Paul Manafort Trial; Former Trump Fixer Michael Cohen Expected to Make Plea Deal. Aired 4- 4:30p ET
Aired August 21, 2018 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.
Wow. A lot going on today.
We begin with breaking news in our politics lead. The president's former personal attorney and fixer, the man who once said he would take a bullet for Mr. Trump, Michael Cohen,he has surrendered to the FBI.
This afternoon, Cohen was spotted entering the building that houses the FBI field office in Manhattan. And inside this New York City courthouse, any moment now, we're expecting a plea deal to be announced by prosecutors, according to a law enforcement source.
Cohen is expected to plead guilty to multiple counts of campaign finance violations, tax fraud and bank fraud, according to three sources.
And the deal would include jail time for the president's former closest lawyer and a substantial monetary fine.
This plea is no doubt a big blow to the president, with Cohen having been part of President Trump's inner circle for more than a decade. We anticipate prosecutors with the office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York to address the public about this deal any minute now.
We're going to bring that to you live when it happens.
But for now, let's go to CNN's Brynn Gingras. She's outside the federal courthouse.
Brynn, any minute now, Cohen is expected to plead guilty to these charges. Do we know if that's happened yet?
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, past experience tells me, Jake, that these proceedings happen on time. They are very, very timely here in federal court, especially with the SDNY.
So one can only assume that he is in the courtroom right now. But I can tell you right now that we don't have transmission from the courtroom because it is a federal courthouse, so we aren't able to verify that 100 percent, but certainly any minute now, it's safe to say.
And these are, of course, as you mentioned, Jake, charges of bank fraud and tax fraud related to Cohen's business practices with his taxi medallion companies and also campaign finance violations. And really what's going to happen here is Cohen is going to appear before a judge, like he has been doing for the past four-and-a-half months ever since this investigation started, when they raided his home, hotel room and office back in April.
And this time he's going to admit to a guilty -- admit guilty pleas to all these charges. They will be read one by one. And it's unclear if the judge will make him give in detail what he's guilty to or if he will just answer yes, but these are all things that we are waiting to find out.
Also, what we're waiting to find out is earlier, we're reporting, we were saying he's not cooperating as part of this plea deal. Certainly, that will be revealed in court, if that's true, if it's not true. And so there's just a lot of details that are going to unfold and a lot of drama, I can tell you, building up outside of this courthouse as we wait for any word of what's going on inside as this unfolds -- Jake.
TAPPER: All right, Brynn Gingras, thank you so much.
Let's talk about it with the panel. I mean, it's just stunning on its face. Michael Cohen, one of the presidents of closest advisers, though not any longer, about to enter into a plea agreement and admit his guilt about bank fraud, tax fraud, campaign finance violations.
If I'm President Trump, I'm not particularly happy right now.
NINA TURNER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: If I'm President Trump, I'm not particularly happy. And I'm also concerned about what this may mean for me and the Mueller investigation that, again, is -- this grew out of that. But this is not Mueller.
TAPPER: There's a referral, right?
TURNER: This was a referral. This is the Southern District of New York.
I also think there's no small coincidence that this happens on the same day where Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced -- got a whole speech today at the Press Club talking about corruption and introduced some legislation to curb the corruption in Congress, but also on the executive branch.
And this culture of corruption is something that Democrats have been increasingly talking more about as they're out there on the campaign trail. We're 77 days away from the midterm elections. And I think there is in fact the case to be made that this White
House, this administration and Republicans associated with the president are not holding up their end of the bargain for the American people. And someone needs to hold them accountable.
JOSH HOLMES, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: New Jersey Senator Menendez has spent the last year-and-a-half battling federal corruption charges of his own.
Look, I think there's one enough blame to go around.
TAPPER: Although that was a hung jury, I believe, right?
But I think what we're looking at is less of a nexus here. There's one piece that's very interesting to me. And that's the campaign finance nexus, because you had Mayor Giuliani back in May saying that the president reimbursed Michael Cohen for that in a non-campaign finance...
TAPPER: In fact, let cut you off right now because we have that sound bite. You set it up perfectly.
This is -- remember, President Trump originally had said that he knew nothing about the payment, the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, and then Mayor Giuliani earlier this year admitted actually that President Trump had reimbursed Cohen for that payment. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I was talking about $130,000 payment, the settlement payment, which is a very regular thing for lawyers to do.
The question there was -- the only possible violation there would be, was it a campaign finance violation, which usually results in a fine, by the way, not this big storm troopers coming in and breaking down his apartment and breaking his office.
That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do out of his law firm funds or whatever funds. Doesn't matter. The president reimbursed that over a period of several months.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
First of all, it was FBI agents, not storm troopers. But that said, the point you were about to make about that. HOLMES: Yes, there's some imprecision there.
But I think, more importantly, this is sort of the only nexus to the Trump campaign that we have seen to date.
TAPPER: That we know, yes.
HOLMES: Yes. You have got the Manafort trial happening. We could have a verdict today. You have got this guilty plea by Cohen to a myriad of charges that stem from his own personal finances and his own personal business operations.
The campaign finance piece is a little bit different. And what I'm really interested to hear when they announce this where that is. Now, we all assume because everybody's talked about the Stormy Daniels payment and whether or not that is what's relevant here. We don't know that. And I think that is an important thing to focus on.
JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But the nexus here -- yes, the Stormy Daniels piece is the sexiest piece perhaps, but he also was Trump's front guy on dealings with Russia and business dealings with Russia.
And we all know that Trump wanted to have Trump Tower in Moscow. That's been widely reported. Cohen was his guy. So he was negotiating through 2016. We know about the Trump Tower meetings. We know there were policy implications.
There's a lot more that we could learn from Michael Cohen. We have said he's not going to participate, or we have heard that he's not going to participate in the process here, but he could change his mind. And he could provide more information.
TAPPER: Amanda, hold on one second, because I want to bring in Laura Coates.
Laura, if there is, if part of the charges against Michael Cohen that he pleads guilty to or is pleading guilty to right this minute includes a campaign finance violation that involves that payment to Stormy Daniels, the payment that Rudy Giuliani says President Trump reimbursed Cohen for, does that make President Trump vulnerable in any way?
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely.
His exposure to the legal process has now exponentially increased, because, remember, there is a discrepancy about what he knew and when he knew it and whether he in fact paid.
The statements of Rudy Giuliani are not the statements that Mueller's team or the SDNY will ever look at in this case. It's what Donald Trump also said on the back of Air Force One. And, remember, it's not just Stormy Daniels' case.
Also, Karen McDougal plays into this as well. There's a pattern of behavior here of corporations being created to pay off and silence around the time of the actual election. And going forward, you think about this. Bank and tax fraud charges are very, very big charges, big felony cases to make.
Just ask Paul Manafort about that. To add on the campaign finance violations when there's no cooperation agreement available for Michael Cohen suggests perhaps he is aware that he is alone and he is retaliating against the president I would states to include that.
They would still need to have some basis upon which to include that as a charge they could actually prove, but we shouldn't take it lightly. He made a decision to plead guilty to two things that the president of the United States has already commented on camera.
TAPPER: All right, Amanda, your take on all this.
AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think we just have to take a moment to absorb the magnitude of the situation for anyone sitting in the White House.
Paul Manafort, who represented the head of the campaign, is awaiting a verdict. Michael Cohen, who was the biggest player in the Trump Organization, representing all of Trump's business interests, is pleading guilty.
If you're in the White House, you have to wonder how this blows back on you. Let's not even forget about Mike Flynn, who was national security adviser, who has pled guilty and is still awaiting sentencing.
And I'm also curious, yes, about the campaign finance angle, primarily because Michael Cohen was deputy finance chairman for the Republican National Committee.
He had jurisdiction of a lot of funds there, and he's pleading guilty to campaign finance crimes? And so the political arm should also be extremely worried.
TAPPER: And we do know -- and the Michael Flynn thing is a piece that we shouldn't forget about all this. We will talk about Manafort also more later in the show.
But today Bob Mueller told the judge that he wanted to delay sentencing for Michael Flynn again, which suggests to experts I have, of which I am not one, one of two things. Either there's more cooperation that he can -- that he can offer, or that there would be something in the sentencing that would reveal sources and methods that Mueller doesn't want to reveal.
But in any case, it's just another reminder that there are other people with legal exposure. And we should just note we just got reporting in. Michael Cohen is indeed in court right now.
But, Jen Psaki, go ahead. PSAKI: It's also a reminder that Mueller does not care that many people who are supportive of Trump are saying he hasn't found anything yet. There's nothing to see here. This is a witch-hunt. He's playing his own game and he is going to hold information or hold back sentencing or decisions when it needs to.
And this is all about the endgame for him and the final result.
TAPPER: And the other thing, you referred to -- I think Laura Coates referred to -- President Trump lying to the American people about that payment to Stormy Daniels.
If we could roll that clip. This is President Trump back in April denying that he knew anything about the payment to Stormy Daniels that possibly is part of the charges today to which Michael Cohen is pleading guilty. Let's roll that tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. No. What else?
QUESTION: Then why did Michael -- why did Michael Cohen make this, if there was no truth to her allegations?
TRUMP: Well, you have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. And you will have to ask Michael.
QUESTION: And do you know where he got the money to make that payment?
TRUMP: No, I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So, Laura Coates, let me ask you. It's not a crime to lie to the American people. It's not a crime to lie to reporters.
What is the relevance of that?
COATES: Well, it is a crime if Michael Cohen is in the courthouse today telling the judge that he is pleading to campaign finance violations. And if those campaign finance law violation charges relate to the statement the president of United States just made, well, now you're talking about a court of law who was weighing, not simply the media or the American people who are being duped by the president of the United States.
And so if the judge -- and what the judge will do is ask questions like, were you directed by anyone in particular to make these campaign finance violations or contributions? What campaign were you acting on behalf of? Was anyone else knowingly and intentionally committing this crime along with you or at your service or direction?
Well, if, he is able to link those two things, well, then you have evidence. The clip you just played becomes not just a sound bite, but it becomes an exhibit possibly in a case against someone in the future.
And it should be noted, as Amanda was talking about, the magnitude of this is very, very real and in fact surreal for a number of reasons, but namely you have got Michael Cohen here, who not only is political arm, but his -- as the fixer of the president, no longer even having the benefit of attorney-client privilege if you're Donald Trump.
They have removed that by saying he's actually not even my lawyer, it was a small fraction of things he worked on. Well, whatever he's going to say today, therefore, it will not be privileged. The court will want to know.
TAPPER: And what I say a lot of times, but it doesn't make it acceptable, that it's not a crime to lie to the American people or to the reporters, because President Trump sure does it a lot.
But you hear from Laura Coates there that it might actually be an exhibit potentially.
TURNER: It could be an exhibit. It could come back to kick him in the tush.
Look, I think it's important to remind folks that it wasn't just President Trump that lied about this. The entire orbit of the White House was involved in this intricate lie. Sarah Huckabee Sanders from the White House press secretary podium said the president knew nothing about this.
And then when it was in fact revealed by the president himself, that he did, in fact, have knowledge of this, she had no answers.
And so if I am the press secretary, I am extremely concerned about all the lies that I have been complicit in telling, all of the falsehoods that I have trotted out there and told. How does it blow back on me?
TAPPER: I have to say, Amanda, Michael Cohen has done everything but use semaphore to make sure that Robert Mueller knows that he wants a deal.
And here you have a deal that has nothing to do with Cohen agreeing to give dirt on President Trump. And one would think -- President Trump particularly, but that any fixer who worked for any New York real estate dealer would have plenty of stuff to talk about, and yet it's not part of this deal.
CARPENTER: I do think the campaign finance angle is going to be very interesting, because there are natural questions. Where did the money come from? Did Trump know where that money was coming from? How exactly did those shell companies work?
We know that Michael Cohen was very fluid in creating shell companies to hide money. That tells me that is something that he may have done regularly as part of the Trump Organization because you don't do that easily and quickly before an election.
TAPPER: All right, everyone, old hold on right now, because we have some breaking news just coming in concerning a different legal case involving a different former Trump ally.
The jury in the trial of the former campaign chair Paul Manafort has sent a new note to the judge.
CNN's Jessica Schneider is outside the courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, for us.
Jessica, what can you tell us about this new note from the jury?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jake, a second note this day.
We have had an earlier note just after 11:00 this morning. And now another note from the jury a little past 4:00 p.m. So at this point, we're waiting, as we do. Once we hear that there's a note, then we wait to hear exactly what the note has said.
The prosecution, that team, is in the courtroom now. We saw the defense walk into the courthouse, so presumably they're also in the courtroom now. We will wait for the judge to get in the courtroom and then they usually bring the jury in. And that's when the note is actually read.
So, again, this is the second note of the day. Earlier today, it was just one or two questions from the jury pertaining to what they should do if they can't come to a consensus on a single count. That was around 11:00 this morning.
And then that's when the judge gave them what is essentially an Allen charge, termed here in Virginia as a Sawyers charge -- Sawyers charge, actually, I think it's pronounced.
[16:15:09] And the judge said to them, you should go back into the courtroom. You should continue your deliberations. Whether it's to this one count that you can't come to consensus on, whether it's still many counts. We're unsure as to exactly how many counts the jury may still have had some question on.
So that happened just past 11:00 a.m. They went back into the jury deliberation room at 11:58. And now, here we stand at about 4:15, 4:20, about four and a half hours the jury has been there in deliberating.
So we'll wait to see, Jake, what the note says. Unclear if it's more clarification questions or if it could potentially even be a verdict here. So, we're going to wait and see and get back to you as soon as we know a little bit more -- Jake.
TAPPER: We're going to go right now to the Senate Intelligence Committee where we're going to listen in to Senator Richard Burr and the vice chairman of the committee, Mike Warner, having a joint statement about Michael Cohen. Let's listen in.
We lost audio on this. We'll go there when we get audio back.
But in the meantime, let me go to Laura for a second.
Laura, let me ask you. Obviously, we don't know anything about the jury verdict until the jury comes out and makes their announcement. Several days that this has taken so long. It's not that really that long, but it has taken longer than just an afternoon, has been interpreted as possibly that the jury considering leniency when it comes to Mr. Manafort.
But now you have the jury saying -- suggesting of the 18 counts, we're deadlocked on one of them. We can't come to a conclusion on one of them, which would imply that they have reached a conclusion on the other 17.
TAPPER: A lot of defense attorneys that have been on CNN and other places have said that would make them feel bad as a defense attorney seeming like 17 counts they have all agreed and the 18th they haven't. That would seem to suggest that maybe they're finding guilty.
But as a former federal prosecutor, how do you interpret it if at all?
COATES: Well, I think you have to be careful about trying to read the tea leaves too much, but it is very clear that the jury had some conundrum of figuring out how to reconcile it. It's not just 18 charges, though, here. People say that. But for each of those 18 charges, there are at least four separate elements that the government has to prove.
So, simple math tells you, 18 times four, you had 12 strangers having to decide on 72 things over a course of a day. Try having in your own family, you agreeing on one or two things over the course of a day, let alone 72 strangers. That's part of the issue.
The other part of it is they can, in fact, render a partial verdict. If they do have consensus on all the other issues by any combination, acquittals and convictions or any combination thereof, all convictions or all acquittals and one looming that hangs, a hung account, they can render a partial verdict. If they do that, the prosecution has the choice of whether or not to retry the case on that charge.
Remember, that happened in one case of John Edwards where they had acquittals on certain charges of his for campaign violations, and one in particular where they hung on a particular issue with his extramarital affair case and his presidential bid. So, you can have that different dynamic at play, but I think ultimately, if you are the prosecution in this case, you are cautiously optimistic. You're not having more questions about what is reasonable doubt, how will we find? Are we pulling out our hair?
And you also have not had a second note which often comes to say, listen, we are deadlocked hopelessly. No amount of deliberation will allow us to come to a decision. At that point, a mistrial of that count or multiple counts could be rendered. So, you're the prosecution, you have deliberation all this time, you've had consensus and you even have had jurors who got along well, Jake, that they agreed on Friday to allow everyone to leave so that one had an event that evening.
This is not jury that hates being around each other but you do have them trying to put their nose to the pavement and get the job done, and I bet the next note they have, they have to project, was going to be about being hopelessly deadlocked on a particular charge.
TAPPER: All right. Laura Coates, thanks so much.
I want to turn back to New York, in the case of Michael Cohen, joining me on the phone right now is Preet Bharara. Before he was fired by President Trump, he was the U.S. district attorney for the Southern District of New York, the very district where Michael Cohen is in court now.
Preet, what's your reaction to the case going on with Michael Cohen right now. It's obviously happening at the same time that there's a -- the jury seems to be coming to some sort of conclusion in the case against Paul Manafort? And, Bob Mueller is also asking for another delay in sentencing against Michael Flynn, suggesting that maybe there's something there that he's still getting cooperation on or sources and methods he doesn't want to reveal.
PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Yes. There's -- the length of your question indicates how much is going on at the moment both in the Eastern District of Virginia and Washington and in New York.
My reaction to the Cohen case, I'm suspending a little bit because I've been waiting desperately like so many other people for the actual documents. [16:20:05] There's been a lot of speculation over the last few hours
of what the nature of the plea deal is, and there are two types, generally, right? There's a regular straight-up plea and then there's a plea deal that involves a promise of cooperation on the part of the defendant. On the other side, a promise or the recommendation of leniency by the government. All accounts I have seen so far, including by CNN, is that this is a straight-up plea.
Now, some people have indicated, but that doesn't rule out forever the possibility of Michael Cohen will be cooperating and will be providing what we call substantial assistance in testimony against other people, perhaps -- perhaps the president given that the campaign finance violations appear to be part of this. We just don't know.
I will tell you, though, it's very unusual for someone, you know, to resolve a case of criminal nature with a full-on plea where you're accepting potentially a (INAUDIBLE) and you haven't worked in a cooperation deal. I'm not saying it's not possible, but for people trying to read into this, that it means the eminent demise of the president some way because there might happen to be charges of campaign finance fraud, I think we're not there yet and it's important to see what these documents say which we should get in the next hour.
TAPPER: Preet, assuming that CNN and everyone else reporting on this that our information is correct, that it's just a straight up plea deal, what does that suggest about Robert Mueller and Michael Cohen? Does it suggest that Cohen has no information that Mueller can use when it comes to the Russia investigation? Does it suggest that Mueller doesn't think Cohen is a credible enough witness to use in any way? What does it say to you?
BHARARA: It could be all those things. And remember, as an initial matter, the special counsel Robert Mueller, you know, spun off this case to the Southern District and so, you know, if you're talking about the moment before he gave the case to the southern district of New York in the first place if he had a lot of information about what people call collusion or the Russia investigation, I don't see why he would have given it to the Southern District in the first place. That was your first hint that maybe Michael Cohen was not central to what the Mueller, you know, team was looking at and focused on most intently.
But I'd always assume if there's a cooperation agreement with the Southern District, whether in regard to his crimes relating to bank fraud or tax fraud or the taxi medallions we have been hearing about as part of that cooperation agreement, he would also be required to give information that he knew about Russia investigation but it seems there's no agreement at all.
Now, people need to be careful to understand it may be in that Michael Cohen wanted to give information and giving the signals that he wanted to flip, that his wife and family came first. He was no longer willing to take a bullet for the president who used to be his boss and that the Southern District decided either as you pointed out, not credible enough or, I mean, again, this is a guess, but even if he had some information that can cause you to draw a line to the president, because of -- I'm obviously off the top of my head, I haven't seen the documents yet. I don't know the details.
If it's not possible to prosecute a sitting president according to Office of Legal Counsel, really not going to lead to a prosecution of someone else and sometimes people have information about other folks and other criminal activities higher up in the food chain and if there's a legal impediment to bringing that other case against someone else higher up in the food chain, like statute of limitations or a change in the law or the fact of a sitting president, you might not sign that (INAUDIBLE) cooperation agreement even if the information otherwise deemed to be incriminating of someone else.
Again, I'm speculating.
BHARARA: I haven't seen the documents and not there anymore. You know, days like this, I wish I was and I would know this stuff. But I think people need to see what the information is.
TAPPER: Right. Obviously, we need to see what the information is and we're eagerly awaiting that press conference from the Southern District of New York.
But, Preet, let me ask you. We know Michael Cohen worked for President Trump for a decade. We know that if one of the charges is related to the payment to Stormy Daniels, the hush money payment, if that is -- that's actually considered a campaign finance violation by the Southern District of New York, U.S. attorney, we know that President Trump reimbursed Cohen for that.
And then, also, we're told and this is obviously if you believe Cohen is a credible source, but Cohen has made it clear that he believes that President Trump knew about the meeting at Trump Tower ahead of time and not after the fact. He's the only one that we know of who's saying that.
TAPPER: So, that would suggest to me that Mueller either doesn't believe him or take it seriously enough if Mueller is not part of this deal, the claim that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting ahead of time, or that there's no crime there.
BHARARA: It could be all, it could be any or all of those things and may also be back to what I said at the beginning, this is unusual.
[16:25:05] You know, this idea that you would plead guilty and then cooperate later, but everything about this case and, you know, throughout this period of time with the Russia investigation, is not only unusual --
TAPPER: I'm going to interrupt you. I apologize. We have some major breaking news in the case.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
TAPPER: Breaking news in the case of the United States of America versus Paul Manafort. The former campaign chair for President Trump, it appears that the jury reached a verdict on at least some of the 18 counts.
CNN's Jessica Schneider is outside the courthouse.
Jessica, what is going on?
SCHNEIDER: Yes, Jake. This jury submitted a note to the judge and the note says that they have reached a verdict, a unanimous verdict on eight of these counts, but they cannot reach a consensus on ten of the counts. Remember, Paul Manafort is facing 18 separate counts of bank and tax fraud, as well as counts related to his foreign bank accounts.
So, this jury now saying we can come to unanimous agreement on eight of these counts, but we can't come to agreement on ten of the counts. We're unsure as to exactly which counts they have agreed on and which counts they haven't. This is all going to play out in the courtroom. This judge will have
to decide what happens next here, because remember, this judge earlier in the day, he instructed this jury to go back and work more at it. Now, that's -- when he did that, the jury note perhaps left a little question because the jury note in particular at that point said if we can't come to consensus on a single count, what should we do?
A lot of people, maybe even the judge interpreted this as they couldn't reach consensus on one count, but now, we're learning obviously they can't come to consensus on ten of these counts. So, at the time, the judge told in the courtroom the jury was not present, the judge had said, yes, I probably would allow a partial verdict here. He did not tell the jury that. He instructed the jury to go back to the deliberations and continue pressing forward to see if they could come to consensus on all counts.
But given the fact that the judge said he might be happy with or be able to come to terms with a partial verdict, that was when the situation was a little bit more unclear. So, now the question is, what will the judge do now that there are ten counts that this jury is essentially hung on those ten counts? Will the judge be satisfied with that?
Possibly not. This judge may opt to do another Allen charge or as it's called here a Sawyer's charge. He might send the jury back again.
But, Jake, we're still waiting to hear word inside the courtroom what the judge does. When we know that, we will get back to you. But again, this jury saying we can't agree on eight counts, we can't agree on 10. What do we do from here? Jake?
TAPPER: All right. Jessica Schneider, thanks.
CNN's Evan Perez joins me now.
And, Evan, you've been in the courtroom all day. What just happened?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Jake. One of the things that the judge is now discussing with both the prosecution and Paul Manafort's lawyers is what he can do next. We expect that one of the possibilities here would be for the judge to tell the jury, look, I want you to go back -- it's almost 5:00 right now. Usually the jury goes home at about 5:00, 5:30. So, perhaps give them another shot at trying to bridge the gap on those 10 counts.
So far, they say they have not been able to reach consensus on. I think that's where the prosecution would prefer for the judge to do, at least urge the jury just try one more time and then perhaps if they can't, by tomorrow morning, then he can consider the other option as Jessica pointed out. The judge himself raised the possibility that if the jury reaches a partial verdict, that that is something that he would consider. Obviously, he has to hear from both sides before he does anything like that.
But, you know, right now, he is going through -- going through all of the motions, all of the options for the two sides because he needs their input before he gives any further instructions to this jury. It is a bit of a surprise. Obviously, as Jessica pointed out, Jake, the note this morning was interpreted different ways. I think Paul Manafort's team came out thinking pretty good. They thought that perhaps this meant that the jury couldn't reach a verdict on any of the counts.
Clearly, they were mistaken. And so, eight counts is what so far, they seem to have come to agreement on and that means some serious likely jail time if that is what exactly comes to pass.
TAPPER: If they agree on eight counts as guilty, not agreeing on eight counts as not guilty. Evan Perez.
Let me bring in Laura Coates.
Laura Coates, you have the information there from Jessica Schneider and Evan Perez. The jury is able to come to a verdict when it comes to eight of the 18 counts. The other 10, they are hung or deadlocked, they're not able to come to consensus.
COATES: You know, it's very predictable when you have the first questions about that came from the jury. Questions about not only the definition of reasonable doubt but question about the very nuanced aspects of these sorts of charges.