Breaking news. We're continuing our live coverage of the ongoing closing arguments in Donald Trump's criminal trial. As I speak, the prosecution is making its closing argument. Judge Mershawn urging the prosecution led by Joshua Stine glass, who's given the closing argument tonight to end the presentation by 08:00 PM. By the way, that would be five hours of closing argument from the prosecution alone. Mershawn telling jurors that the court is, Taking full advantage of their flexibility tonight. 8:00. We're at 7:31 Eastern, seeing if this actually will conclude here in the next few moments. Out front now, former Trump Whitehouse lawyer, Ty Cobb. Ty, I appreciate your time. We're now getting into hour 5, possibly, of the prosecution's closing. How quickly do you think, once this gets to the jury, tomorrow morning, we believe, how quickly will there be a verdict?

I think we'll have a verdict Friday afternoon at the latest. It could be Monday, but I think this case could easily be resolved by the weekend. Fridays are usually a trustworthy day to estimate a verdict return because jurors typically don't want to spend the weekend on this stuff, and they don't really want to come back the next week. They'll have had three full days to consider it. I think that's likely the day.

All right. You think by Friday, you also think the jury will find Trump guilty. How come?

I do. I think Well, I think it's a combination of things, but primarily it's because the jury instructions almost require it. The judge is not going to instruct on any level of intent or knowledge that Trump should have had or must have had with regard to the second crime, the generically referenced campaign finance crimes. The jury certainly can't unanimous on whatever that crime is because the crime itself hasn't been identified. It's out there as multiple possibilities. Both those concepts are a little at odds with traditional criminal requirements of knowledge and intent and unanimity. But this is a very odd statute, I think as applied here, the defense is going to have a good argument on appeal that it was unconstitutionally applied.

All right. Can Can you, just to explain, tie, so that just very, very simply, what instructions are you referring to here that the jury that have already been put out there that you're saying would basically say they can't consider the motive of the campaign finance?

Well, it's not so much that they don't say that. It's just they omit any reference to what the standard is for Trump's knowledge and intent with regard to whatever that crime is. They don't specify specifically what the crime is. There are multiple criminal possibilities under the campaign finance laws, from false information to taking illegal contributions, either in-kind contributions, cash contributions, variety contributions. There are a lot of elements to those particular offenses, none of which is going to be told to the jury.

All right. You think that it is that specific part about the underlying crime, about campaign finance, that is going to ensure the guilty verdict? Then just draw that line for me from one to the other.

Sure. They're going to basically be deciding really only the bookkeeping records and having to take it on faith from the judge and the prosecution that this was all based on campaign finance concerns. On the motive.

I don't think the evidence- On the motive. Basically, you're saying that they're going to have to decide, do you know these checks were being signed or whatever, but not the motive that he would have done it?

That and what his knowledge and intent was of those crimes. I mean, you can't commit a crime that you don't understand to be a crime, and you can't commit a crime that you don't intend to commit. That's true of each of the elements of those crimes, and the jury is going to hear none of that.

All right. Let me ask you about one other point that I think flows from this, Ty, and that is, Trump, over the weekend, he went on social media and he was railing. It seems about what you're talking about, that if the jury unanimously finds him guilty of falsifying business records, Judge Mershon is not requiring them to be unanimous about the motivation, about the campaign finance. It seems as if he's referring to what you're referring to. But how he put it was on his social media post, It's completely, and then he puts in all caps, un-American and unconstitutional. Would you agree with that characterization?

I think he has a good argument. He and his legal team have a strong argument that it's unconstitutional. I think the un-American is always a subjective thing. I rarely buy into Trump's screeds. I say this criticism of the approach of the prosecutors and the judge reluctantly because, as you know, I think Trump is the gravest danger democracy that the nation has ever seen. But I do think in this case, there are certainly compelling legal issues that will be raised on appeal and quite likely may be successful.

Can I ask your view, Ty, as to why the judge would not include what appears to be so central?

I think the judge decided even before the trial, when he refused to tackle these issues, and during jury instructions, when he again refused to tackle these issues, that he was We're not going to package this up for the appellate courts and let the appellate courts resolve these things. There is an argument under this statute that they're not required to do what they're not doing. But I think that they may be wrong on that and it's going to take the appellate court to tell us that. The prosecution is clearly intent to take a conviction and run, as I think Ellie said last week, and I think he's right, that The prosecution is proceeding in a way that is pretty... They lean pretty heavily into the evidence that was most questionably admitted in this case, and they've spent a lot of time in closing on that evidence. I think that's risky on appeal, but good for their odds of conviction.

All right. Well, Ty, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Always a pleasure. Thank you. Nice to be with you, Erin.

All right, you too. Panel back with me. Ryan, what's your understanding? Because The prosecution spent a significant amount of time making the point of what Trump's motive was. Then it gets removed. I mean, is this something that is going to become crucial, whether it be to some mistrial or as Ty is pointing out, for appeal?

Not necessarily. I mean, especially because the appeal is going to stay within New York courts, essentially. The law that they're using, it is very familiar to use this a law to say that the jury does not unanimously have to agree as to what the unlawful means are. They can have different views of what those unlawful unlawful means were to influence the election, as long as they all unanimously agree that Donald Trump used unlawful means to influence the election under the New York election law crime. I think they're pretty solid on that. What I don't know is if tie is right that the judge does not require the additional element of willfulness that Trump knew he was violating federal election law. That is a significant give to the prosecutors, but we don't necessarily know that yet. We'll have to wait to see what the judge instructs the jurors tomorrow as to whether or not he says that. There's an argument for unlawful means unlawful means, and that could mean civil violations, not just criminal violations of federal election law. That's what the prosecutors asked for, but we'll wait to see what the judge says.

Joey, the point about willful, as Ty is saying, that you need to have willfully done something, and you have to have known that you were doing it.

It's important, Erin, because it goes to this fancy term that us lawyers call mens rea. That's about what is your state of mind? I think proving state of mind is in the criminal system you want to know. Were you acting intentionally? Were you acting negligently? That is carelessly. Were you acting recklessly? Did you consciously disregard? I think defining someone's state of mind and having a ruling on that is critical. The other thing, very briefly, is due process is important. You can't prepare for something when you don't know what you're preparing for. I think one of the things that has frustrated me in interest of full disclosure about this case, to conceal another crime. What specifically should be the crime that was concealed? What specific mens rea is associated with the concealing of that? Intentionally concealing it. But define for me, don't say, Well, it could be tax law, it could be campaign finance, it could be election law, it could be this, it could be that. That's not the way this is played. The reality is, is be definitive with respect to what you're doing. If you don't do that, it's problematic to me.

Mark, how do you see it?

I look at it, I think it's problematic because we in criminal law look for certainty. If you're going to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, we know what it is you're attacking us over and we can defend to it. This alternative way of arguing in one, two, or three different ways is a little bit troubling to a good in the gut criminal defense attorney. It's like you have to prove up reckless driving. Okay, is reckless driving value use of signal, going outside the lane, speeding a little bit. That's what they're saying. You can commit to him of reckless driving, but you don't all have to agree it was because he didn't put on a signal or because he was speeding or because he went over the white line. As long as you know that it was reckless for him to do that. Quite honestly, that's what the prosecution probably should have said in a way to try and get it across as to they are alternative ways to the same goal.