After about three hours of deliberation, the jury in President Trump’s hush-money trial sent its first note on Wednesday afternoon with three questions regarding the testimony of the former publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, and one question regarding the testimony given by Mr. Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, an indication that the jurors are not blindly believing Cohen’s version of events. 

A short time later, the jury sent a second note, asking the judge to repeat his instructions.    

“Good afternoon. We have received a note,” the New York state supreme court justice, Juan Merchan, said at 2:56 p.m. Reporters had been called back into the courtroom, and Mr. Trump had also returned, accompanied by his eldest son, Don Jr., who was the only family member with him at court.

After the judge had instructed the jury in the morning, the seven men and five women left the courtroom at around 11:30 a.m. to begin deliberating whether their former president, Mr. Trump, is not guilty or guilty in the highly publicized hush-money case. As the Sun reported on Saturday, Mr. Trump has the right to appeal a guilty verdict.     

The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has charged Mr. Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to influence the 2016 election. The prosecution alleges that Mr. Trump instructed Cohen to make a $130,000 hush-money payment to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, two weeks before Election Day in 2016. 

The payment was intended, the prosecution says, to keep Ms. Clifford from publicizing her story about a one-time sexual encounter she claims to have had with Mr. Trump at a celebrity golf tournament at Lake Tahoe in 2006. After Mr. Trump became president, the prosecution further alleges, he reimbursed Cohen but fraudulently disguised the payment as a legal expense. 

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump told court reporters that “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges.” He added, “We’ll see how we do … it’s a very disgraceful situation.”  He later posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, in capital letters, “I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE CHARGES ARE IN THIS RIGGED CASE.”

“I AM ENTITLED TO SPECIFICITY JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE,” he wrote.

In his epic closing statement, which lasted five hours (longer than an opera by Richard Wagner), prosecutor Joshua Steinglass explained the specificities in great detail. The criminal act began, according to Mr. Steinglass, in August 2015 at Trump Tower, when Mr. Trump and Cohen met with Mr. Pecker, who at the time presided over the Enquirer, and cooked up a scheme to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election.    

“That was the whole purpose of the Trump Tower meeting, to get AMI to help [Trump] win the election,” Mr. Steinglass told the jury on Tuesday afternoon, referring to the Enquirer’s parent company. He added that this conspiracy violated “New York state election law.”

A defense attorney, Todd Blanche, had disagreed in his closing statement, arguing that Mr. Pecker was simply reiterating that he would continue to help protect Mr. Trump’s public image by buying the silence, with hush-money and nondisclosure agreements, of individuals selling unflattering stories about Mr. Trump. This is something Mr. Pecker, according to Mr. Blanche, had been doing for Mr. Trump since the 1990s, long before he had electoral aspirations. 

“They had been doing it for President Trump since the ’90s,” Mr. Blanche said on Tuesday. “Mr. Pecker told you that AMI purchases stories all the time.” He added, “They purchased stories about Tiger Woods, Mark Wahlberg, and other people. No crime.” 

On Wednesday, the jury requested that it be read transcripts from both Mr. Pecker’s and Cohen’s testimony again regarding this specific August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower. The jurors also asked to hear another part of Mr. Pecker’s testimony, the one in which he explained his 2016 decision to pay Karen McDougal, Playboy’s Playmate of the Month for December 1997 and Playmate of the Year for 1998, $150,000 for her life rights.  

Ms. McDougal was selling her story about a nine-month sexual relationship she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump in the mid-2000s, while he was married to his third and current wife, Melania. Ms. McDougal also claimed she did not want to publish the story, and was happy just to sell it and let it remain a secret. As Mr. Pecker testified, “She did not want to be the next Monica Lewinski.”  

The so-called catch-and-kill allegation plays an important role in the case. Mr. Pecker testified that he bought Ms. McDougal’s story to protect Mr. Trump’s image during the election campaign. She was told the money was for her to write fitness columns and about the removal of her breast implants, but that never materialized.

The third request the jury had was to hear Mr. Pecker’s testimony, describing a phone conversation he had in 2016 with Mr. Trump, during which Mr. Trump asked him for advice about purchasing Ms. McDougal’s story. 

“We didn’t want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign.” Mr. Pecker testified. According to the prosecution, such a purchase should be considered a campaign contribution, which is illegal for a corporation.    

The judge sent the jury home at 4 p.m., and asked the attorneys from both parties to look at and agree on which parts of the transcripts would appropriately address the juror’s questions and should be read to them. The attorneys returned to the courtroom at 5 p.m. and presented their disagreements to the judge. 

“Where do we stand?” Judge Merchan asked the attorneys.

A “few outstanding issues” remained, Mr. Steinglass told the judge, especially about Mr. Pecker’s testimony regarding the meeting at Trump Tower. Mr. Steinglass explained that the parties disagreed about whether the jury should hear what Mr. Pecker told his then-National Enquirer editor in chief, Dylan Howard, about the meeting. There was an issue regarding the “the substance of the meeting” versus “the execution,” Mr. Steinglass said. 

The judge did not rule on the matter Wednesday evening. He will inform the attorneys about his decision on Thursday morning, before the portions of the transcripts will be read to the jury.

The judge will also read the instructions to the jury again on Thursday morning.