when an accomplished has not been corroborated, right? but i think the prosecutors may have been able to convince the jury that between the documents, and especially the way that cohen's testimony echoed pecker's testimony in a number of ways, that may have made the jury think that there actually was enough corroboration that they could credit cohen in key places. >> okay, so we want to bring in trey gowdy, who is joining us, as well. a state and federal prosecutor, as well. you have seen many juries, many trials. what does it say to you? we thought they were leaving for the day, then we get word that there is a verdict. what does that telegraph, if anything, to you? >> if i were the prosecution, i would feel better than if i was the defense attorney. i just -- i think the speed with which this happened, there were

a couple of holdouts initially, and they are now of one of cord. >> shannon: do you think maybe they were convinced, whatever the disagreement was, if there was a disagreement, they asked for the pecker testimony and the cohen testimony, the rereading of the jury instructions, do you think the fact that we didn't hear from them again after that, that that one section or that one conflict was what they needed to get to something now? >> i think the jury instruction was pretty pro-prosecution. i think a lot of the evidentiary rulings were pro-prosecution. so what you are going to get with a verdict is pretty much what you've gotten up to that point. what are the rulings? what evidence has come in? what evidence has been excluded? so the expert they never heard from. the jury is only as good as the information they are getting.

>> shannon: well, so that gets to my question, you all having -- and you have handled some very high-profile cases. is there a situation when afterwards jurors may hear more of the story, things that were excluded, things that the defense argued for and could not get in, and then possibly hearing from a juror at another point, oh, we didn't know this was an option, that was an option, we didn't know they excluded an expert who may have been able to tell us more about federal election law. i guess that's the kind of thing that if they talk, we could finally get some more information from them about how those decisions impacted to where they got to eventually. >> there have been many cases where the juries, after they bring in a verdict, they learn in the media that there were aspects of the case that they were not aware of, and that they wish they had been aware of. sometimes they have some, you know, buyers remorse about the verdict, and that can play into that.

sometimes they authentically do here information they wish they had had and didn't. i think, shannon, a big part, and trey can probably speak to this, as well, a big part of this case and the cases i have been involved in, in federal court, in big cases, judges are very, they are loathe at the idea of stopping the defense from proving things that the defense says are essential to their case. so, in these big cases where you don't want to get reversed and where it would be a real resource drain on the system to have to retry the case, if the defense tells you, my defense hinges on having bradley smith come in at explain to the jury what a campaign expenditure is because if they don't hear from somebody who actually has knowledge about the subject, it will be like they are being instructed by michael cohen and david pecker, which is, in fact, what happened in this case, most judges i've ever been in front

of would be very hesitant not to let that testimony come in, so in those cases, you don't have the situation where they learn afterwards that there were important things that were withheld from them. >> and i think it is important for your viewers to understand why andy just said what he said. so if you are a judge and you rule against the prosecution at the prosecution wins, there is no appeal or because the prosecution won. so there is almost this built-in incentive to rule for the defense because if the defendant loses and there is an appeal, the judge could very well get reversed and get his or her hand slapped, so the bias is usually to let the defendants do more, arguably, then sometimes they are entitled to do. that was not judge merchan's perspective, not for the four days i was in the courtroom. >> shannon: okay, stay put, guys. i think judge jeanine is available for us, as well. judge, if you can hear me, what do you make of where we are right now? there are not many people out there who think that an

acquittal as possible but anything is possible. we don't know where these jurors are going but we do know we will learn soon, judge, what does your gut tell you, having presided over many of these cases yourself? >> judge jeanine: my sense is, generally, that the prosecution is pleased when the verdict is in early verdict. and although there are 34 counts here, the truth is the cons are very similar. i have a big concern about what trey and andy mccarthy were talking about and that is the issue of the judge not allowing the defense to present the case that they needed to in order to represent their client properly. and most important is the fact that, you know, the bringing into testimony of the fact that michael cohen is guilty of a federal election law violation, and that david pecker had a nonprosecution agreement as it relates to the federal election law, and the judge says, i let these in because they go to credibility and because they

give you context. well, anyone who understands a case in new york knows that federal election violations are not generally considered credibility cries. lying and perjury and stealing is. but when a judge says i give it to you for context, what was really going on here in this case, we didn't know it until we got to the charge to the jury, was that the judge was signaling to the jury, michael cohen is a matter of law is aiding and abetting and complicit with donald trump in a federal election law violation, which even though i only allowed it for credibility, the truth is he is being charged with aiding and abetting trump, so this is a very easy hurdle for the jury to say, yeah, pecker and cohen got slammed for it, should donald trump be slammed for it? plus, the issue of not being able to bring in brad smith, the issue of not having an adverse charge for a missing witness,

that missing witness being the chief financial officer, allen weisselberg, who can talk about the fact that as it related to vouchers, invoices, and checks, donald trump had nothing to do with it. there was no testimony about that at all in the transcript, and the one thing the jurors asked about, that meeting in trump tower, donald trump said three times, i don't pay for stories. i don't pay for stories. and the defense made it very clear that this catch and kill wasn't in any of the three cases that the prosecution was alleging. a lot of this was smoke and mirrors. i can understand that if the jury makes the decision this quickly, you know, maybe they bought into this smoke and mirrors. it is very disconcerting, at this point. >> shannon: okay, just to let folks know, our producers inside say that the jury is back in the room. that judge merchan is back on the bench. and so, we are looking now, it looks like we have some of the

verdict coming in. it is quickly coming in here. from inside. we are starting to hear that there are guilty -- there are guilty verdicts from our producer inside, we are hearingh five. one through 12, we have now 13, 14, guilty. 15 guilty. you may hear, there are folks here who have been protesting on both sides of this case. some cheers, some boos, as we are now getting the information from the cherry. we are up to 18 counts, 19, guilty. remember we have 34. 20, guilty. these counts were very similar. what they were looking at, it was different occurrences essentially of the same crime of misdemeanor that was elevated by being linked to a felony, to an underlying crime. we are now 24 counts income all guilty, from inside, this is what we are hearing from our producers. up to 26, guilty. and i remember each of these counts could come a maximum,

have four years in jail. president trump will be considered a first-time offender. these are nonviolent crimes. so it seems that it is unlikely the judge would sentence him to prison, but we are now up to 31 counts, guilty, out of 34. 32. guilty. also coming in from inside the courtroom. our producers now say 33 and 34, they are saying guilty on all 34 charges. that is where we are at the jurors. it looks like they are going to leave for the day, suddenly we get this verdict. it is 34 guilty counts on all of this. i want to bring in andy mccarthy, who is here with me, judge jeanine, as well, and trey gowdy. andy, where we go from here, obviously there automatically be an appeal for this trump team as quickly as possible. there is the legal issue of sentencing to come. that's going to take may be months to get to a free trial report on this end to a sentencing by the judge come and reminded the jurors, he's the one who decides, but we have the reality now of a former president for the first time

being convicted on 34 criminal counts, guilty on all of these counts, whatever conflict or confusion or questions the jury had, they got the information back to them this morning by the end of day 2 of deliberations. we are at 34 guilty counts for the former president of the united states of america. >> it's a historic trial of a former president of the united states by his partisan adversaries. whatever you think of the results, it's inconceivable in new york that anyone else other than donald trump whatever have been indicted in this way. by alvin bragg, the elected progressive democratic district attorney who campaigned on the fact that he would go after donald trump, that he had a history of going after donald trump. this is a very political exercise. and you have to say that it accomplished what it set out to accomplish. what they wanted was to have a situation where they could call

donald trump a convicted felon in the run-up to the election. we have an elected democrat who got that accomplished. he got a very friendly judge, who ruled his way on every important thing, and turned the jury instructions into a road map to conviction. so now i assume with the mission having been accomplished, we will have more procedural regularity, shannon, as you just said, there will be a presentence investigation. there should be a sentencing scheduled and we will go from there. but this case will be appealed, and i hope that there will be more fairness and equity in the appealed and there was in the trial appeared >> shannon: and trey, with the counts, the indictment first came in, there were a lot of people across the political and legal spectrum who said this feels like the weakest case against president trump. something changed along the way. how much of this have to do with the guidance from judge merchan, whether it was the jury instructions, whether it was the decisions on objections, whether it was the decision not to let

in certain witnesses that the defense wanted to call? >> all of the above. the verdict is a necessary and probable consequence of everything that happened up to that point. that includes jury selection. it includes evidentiary rulings. i was in the courtroom or the overflow room for different days. shannon, it wasn't just the results of judge merchan's rulings. the tone of his voice was different depending on which side was doing the objecting, so look, i said a week ago, juries usually get it right based on the information they are given. when you don't get to hear from an fec expert, you hear proximity and propensity evidence against the defendant, and by that i mean he was close to two people who were guilty, therefore he must be guilty, and you hear salacious details with stormy daniels, i mean, i think everything was going to be an acquittal.

i having been in the courtroom might have been a hung jury, 10-2, 11-1, but the jury resulte given up to that point, so that is an obvious result to me. >> shannon: judge come in appeal takes time. it might be a long time before that is resolved. however it is resolved. but what that means is this white house, the biden-harris campaign free now to call president trump a convicted felon. i got to say, though, over a year ago when president trump was asked, will you drop out of this race if convicted -- not convicted, if indicted, he said no, because i actually think it will help me and my poll numbers. they have done well with fundraising. he has done well in polling. does this help or hurt now in the public opinion where he's got to get independent voters, where he's got to get people who are not necessarily part of his base, now that he's got this conviction -- which may or may not maybe one day be overturned? >> judge jeanine: you know, shannon, i don't have the answer to that question. i want to believe that americans believe in justice, and i think

that in their gut, they realized that there is something that is very wrong here. we have gone over a cliff in america. this verdict is a verdict of someone who was forced to fight a 1,000-pound gorilla with both hands to tied behind his back. this was a defendant for whom crimes were created, against whom a judge was picked, that out of the or ordinary, not from the drum, but a judge that was handpicked for this defendant, who denied him the ability to fight the way he needed to fight, who brought in crimes that we have never heard of in new york before, where they had dead misdemeanors that they resurrected into felonies based upon nonunanimous verdicts of crimes that are federal over which no state court or no state judge or prosecutor has jurisdiction, and in the end, with all the smoke and mirrors,

at 34 counts, and a hooker, and a guy according to a federal judge is a serial perjurer, we have convicted a former president of the united states of america. we have gone over a cliff. the question is whether or not americo will react to this, whether his numbers will go up or down. i don't know. but i do know what i know, and what i know is that this case is riddled with errors. it is reversible. it will not get through to the appellate division and the first apartment in new york or certainly the court of appeals before the next year. and people say should it go to the supreme court, no, it can't go to the supreme court unless they exhaust all the state court appeals. i am -- i have spent 32 years in this system, and i am totally disillusioned. you had a judge, and you had a d.a., who literally campaigned on making sure that this president would be indicted. we've got an attorney general who did the same thing.

this is a new era in america, and i think it goes against the ilk of who we are as americans and our faith in the criminal justice system. >> shannon: so, if you are just joining us, 34 counts, 34 in that indictment against president trump. today the jury comes back unanimously convicting him guilty on all 34 counts. they were all similar in that they had to do with falsification of business records. that was what would have been a misdemeanor. that is where the statute of limitations would have run. and there was another underlying crime, which we didn't find out about what that was going to become essentially, until the closing arguments and th instructions from a judge yesterday. he gave them choices. trey, we have talked about this many times, that they had choices. will we ever know what choice the jury made with the linking this to an underlying crime? >> there only two ways you will know that -- maybe possibly three. on appeal, arguably, the government could be forced to explain what that second crime was. maybe it's in a special verdict

form and we haven't seen it. it certainly wasn't read to the jury. it wasn't polled. the jury was just polled, which means each individual juror was asked, is this your verdict and still your verdict? we don't know what that secondary crime was. or a member of the jury could talk. they are not required to. they will be told they don't have to, but sometimes members of the jury will talk, and they will say, this was that extra crime that we found. >> shannon: what do you think, and he? the judge there talked about how people are going to react to this in different ways. we've got a tweet out now from donald trump jr come he says guilty on all counts, the democrats have succeeded in their years long attempt to turn america into a third world blank. november 5th is our last chance to save it. so tough news for the former president legally, but politically, does he get a boost from this on the campaign trail, saying, okay, they did what i told you they were going to try to do to me, now you have to elect me in order to head all of

the rest of us off that i predict will come. >> hard for us to gauge, as people who are very involved in politics, because i think at this point in the campaign, the people you are trying to reach other people who aren't all that taken in with politics. for most of the people who are in our world and who followed this closely, i think they are pretty stuck in their positions, and what i have always wondered, and i am not the political guy, we've got a former member of congress that is here, but i thought that the internal polling of the democrats has to tell them, it would seem to me, that being able to call trump a convicted felon in the run-up to the election is worth x number of points in the battleground states, so even if it fires up his base, and it should, and even if jeanine, i think, is quite right, that this is going to change american prosecution and the american justice system for the worse because the flag

of politicized prosecution has been planted here in a way that it has never been planted before, but as it plays politically, i think the question is how much is it worth to have that talking point for them in the run-up to the election? >> shannon: yeah, and judge jeanine, we think about that and also the context of the fact, if they are, as we talked about, going to start referring to former president trump as convicted felon donald trump, and whether they are going to use that language, that we also know hunter biden is facing two federal trials, which we can talk about, as well, one of them starting on monday, and the fact that i don't think this trump campaign is going to pull any ps of convicted of something. it does look to many people across the spectrum here in america that a lot of our political fighting has turned to legal warfare, as well. >> judge jeanine: interesting, shannon, we have been calling it lawfare. i think lawfare is far too soft, it's far too benign. this is warfare.

this is the taking down of someone, not just politically, but legally, and looking to take away their civil liberties. and you know, as a prosecutor and a judge, my job was to make sure that the guilty were convicted and to make sure that people's civil liberties were taken away -- i understand it is coming out? >> shannon: yeah, judge can hold on just a second, we see president trump now walking out p or let's listen p >> a trial by a convicted judge who was corrupt. it's a rigged trial, a disgrace. they wouldn't give us a venue change. we were at 5% or 6% in this district, in this area. this was a rigged, disgraceful trial. the real verdict is going to be november 5th, by the people. and they know what happened here, and everybody knows what happened here. you have a sorrows-backed d.a.,

and the whole thing, we didn't do a thing wrong, i'm a very innocent man. and it is okay, i am fighting for our country, i am fighting for our constitution. our whole country is being rigged to right now. this was done by the biden administration. in order to wound or hurt an opponent, a political opponent, and i think it is just a disgrace, and we will keep fighting, we will fight to the end and we will win because our country has gone to hell. we don't have a country anymore. we have a divided mass. we are in serious decline. millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now from prisons and from mental institutions, terrorists. and they are taking over our country. we have a country that is in big trouble. this was a rigged decision right from day one. with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case, never. and we will fight for our

constitution. this is long from over. thank you very much. >> reporter: [indistinct] [indistinct reporter questions] >> shannon: owen wright, the former president -- the former president speaking there briefly, not taking any questions, as has been his practice speaking at the courthouse. i remember he has been under a gag order for this trial, as well, which has been -- it's been stretched, i think. to its limits, sometimes. there have been findings by the judge that there have been violations. but the former president has spoken openly from the beginning, saying that he felt this judge had conflicts. they have been references to his daughter, the work that she does to alvin bragg, and to the way this whole thing was set in motion. >> greg: six, you look like you had some reaction to what he was staying there because of course he slipped into campaign mode because the mind will become okay, the people geo answer, their verdict is the one

that matters, november 5th, it's going to be a push to that now as the talking point. >> my guess is at some point president trump or his surrogates will say, perhaps i am a convicted felon, you are on convicted felons. you have engaged in egregious conduct. it just hasn't resulted in us using the court system to go after you. i think the bite and campaign needs to be really, really careful. his son may be a convicted felon by this time next week. the other thought i had going through my mind as i was on -- i was in an audience sitting by tim scott in south carolina when donald trump went to great lengths to defend new york. remember, candidate ted cruz made an unflattering reference to new york values, and you may recall that, and donald trump went to great lengths as a candidate to defend new york. and i just think it is bitterly ironic that it wound up being a district attorney from new york who actually openly campaigned on doing what he just did, that

is a disturbance to the justice system. prosecutors shouldn't care about the politics. you don't go after people, you go after crime. this new era of so-called progressive prosecutors, there is nothing progressive about them. they are defense attorneys masquerading as prosecutors, and it is going to wind up, ultimately, i hope, i think it may be the undoing of our country. >> shannon: well, i hope that is not the case. that feels very ominous, but i know that people worry if they feel like they can't have confidence in their judicial system. we know that when it comes to congress, when it comes to many of our institutions in washington, polling shows us, whether it is up you are gallup, there have been a lot of them in recent months and years, showint the underpinnings of our country and they want to trust them and no matter what their position, their politics are, they are going to be treated fairly once they get into the court system. now, john yoo has a piece, i talked to them in the 3:00 hour, he has a piece out today saying this is already -- no matter what the verdict is going to be -- it has already damaged the presidency and the folks on both sides of the aisle now have to consider that this is the way

business gets done. there are some who would say don't encourage republicans to now go try to use the court system in the same way, but it seemed to be an overview of john's piece that he seems to suggest, well, if this is the way the game is played now, both sides are going to start playing it, and as trey suggested, may be a new chapter in our country in the way we do things. >> i think it is a new chapter. i feel it personally. as this trial unfolded and we got more of a read on what bragg's theory was that the judge was going to allow him to let fly, i started to think about this in terms of what's going on out there that this could be used as a precedent to attack? so, for example, this very vague, vaporous idea that somehow politics -- what we have always known as politics as usual, which is filled with hyperbole, and often just flat out untrue statements, right?

now that is being brought into the prosecutorial realm come into the courtroom, so it occurred to me, for example, if i wanted to have a model of a very loose conspiracy against the united states, which occasionally gets invoked in federal court, where it's a deceptive scheme to prevent the government from carrying out an essential function like having an honest election. what if i decided that joe biden says it was 9% inflation when he took office, he knows that's not true, and yet he says it again and again and again. why isn't that a deception against the electorate? and if he got together with his campaign advisors and said this would be a good talking point, why couldn't some aggressive prosecutors say that looks to be like a fraud kind of case that alvin bragg brought in new york. and that's the way that people are going to think in this system. i think it is a terrible development. bill barr was correct when he said, no, the president is not above the law, but if you are

bringing a case against a president, it should be a strong crime that everybody recognizes as a crime and that you have convincing evidence for it. it can't be one of these flimsy things where it looks capricious, where there is a lot of political judgment and whether to bring it and what you need the judge to put his thumb on the scale to get it home. >> shannon: judge, i want to bring you in here. we heard from the president. he came out and mentioned the fact this is a venue where he got very little of the vote last time around or last presidential election, it is no secret that manhattan -- i think the estimates were about 85% plus or more in voting for president biden last time around. he talked about the fact that they are not going to lose this ultimately says we are going to keep fighting. we know that an appeal will happen. he says we ultimately will win. and we will have to see. listen, if you still fighting that fight as president or as a candidate who failed to rewin the white house after november, that is yet to be seen, but in the meantime, what price does he pay politically -- or does he

not pay politically -- as that appeals process plays out and he now calls to the american people to deliver their own verdict in november? >> judge jeanine: well, i think that the american people will be struck by this, as we are all struck by it come in different ways. eye is a former prosecutor and a judge who knows the state courts and knows the state law, i know that this is riddled with reversible error. i know that there was no basis to charge of this crime. this alleged crime, to resurrected misdemeanors based upon nonunanimous federal violations of the election law or of the tax law. i mean, you've got that, but there is also a gut punch to the criminal justice system in the united states. people realize, we are no longer safe anymore. and it is because of the progressive left agenda of making sure that we don't keep people in jail and they are out there with 33 arrests, but they are still assaulting people and

violently attacking people down the street here. but now we've got one of the most famous individuals in the world, the former president of the united states, who could be taken down by a george soros-funded prosecutor, on a crime that doesn't exist, we are not one person put his finger anywhere near that bookkeeping, and now they are going to return a verdict and say oh, he is guilty, he is definitely guilty. this is a jury pool made out of 85%-990% not pro-anybody, anti-trump. we knew it. that's the jury pool. we have a judge was not picked out of the wheel or the drum, as all of us judges are. he was a judge who was selected not just for the trump organization, not just this case, but also for another case that involves, who was the guy,

the bannon case, this is an anti-trump judge, anti-america prosecutor. america is going to respond to this. this is a gut punch. we want to see politicians fight. we don't want to see what they do in third world countries, to have one side start indicting and jailing the other side. this is not american. this is not who we are. and to see this happen before our eyes when we know that this is not legitimate, when a defendant was not advised of the crimes that he was charged with, they don't even know what the crimes are until we get to the charge to the jury, as if the prosecution and the judge, with a wink and a nod, said hey, i'll give you that accomplice testimony even though we did in charge donald trump with aiding and abetting anyone else, i'll throw it in as a matter of law, he's an accomplice, and i will throw in those federal election violations, so they will have to say, yeah, donald trump must have done it, too, and i will throw in a hooker and a guy who is a serial perjurer. this is lunacy, and i think that

any red blooded american who sees this is going to understand, this isn't what we do to our political enemies. this is what they do in kangaroo courts and third world countries. god help america after what i've seen in the last few weeks. >> shannon: all right, judge, i want to bring in professor jonathan turley, who has been in the courtroom today. so you are fresh out of there. can you give us any of the flavor? because when we thought the court was going to break for the day, it seems like president trump and his team seemed to relax, that he was smiling. maybe they thought, okay, this jury is going to still struggling, going to leave tonight not digging it to say an we get word that the verdict is coming in. can you tell us about the mood in the courthouse? >> it was one of the most bizarre moments i have had in a courtroom, and i was just observing. the judge had just said that the jury could not reach a decision. and that we would be dismissed for the day. some reporters actually gathered their stuff and were starting to leave. and then the judge came and

basically said, my mistake. we just got a note saying there's a verdict. throughout this time, you could feel the building pressure in that courtroom. the one person that didn't seem to register it was the former president. he had been chatting with counsel. he didn't show any emotion at all. as this mantra of guilty verdict of guilty verdict was read and there was a great, i think this is one of those things that really embodies the entire trump era. there were people who clearly were thrilled by the result. and there were people that will be very sad by it. i was saddened to watch it. i disagree with this verdict. i think, as i have said before, that this case was legally unfounded. when they were reading those guilty verdicts, the one thing that we didn't know is really what he was found guilty of,

because if you remember, the judge allowed the jury to find guilt on any 1 of 3 secondary crimes. we weren't told whether the jury found any one of those crimes, whether they found all three of those crimes. i'm not too sure we will know that. that's one of the many issues that i think presents reversible problems in this case. so what i would say is that this is a historic moment. we all have to take a breath. but for those upset by this verdict, remember, this remains a country committed to the rule of law. and this is going to go up on appeal. i think it's going to be reversed in the state or federal systems. but it's moments like this, when you are on the other side, when you disagree with a verdict, that you have to take a leap of faith in the rule of law. it's what defines us. many people feel that this case really embodied the antithesis of that.

but as a country as a whole, we have a system in place to review this. for donald trump, that's not going to happen before the election, in all likelihood. but let's keep in mind that this is not the only court. it's just the first one. >> shannon: well, and there have also been jury trials and judges and decisions that have been made that have already been tough for the former president and other contacts, too, in the business context and a personal case involving e. jean carroll. there are other decisions made against him that have been very difficult. they've been in new york. what do you think that portends or does not with these other cases we have pending? george it doesn't look like it is going to get to trial before we get to november. the two federal cases, we are waiting for the supreme court decision on immunity that could come as early as next thursday, we get opinion again. what will that case mean to all of these things that are pending or have already been decided when it comes to this question, you know, we heard the arguments, the supreme court, there were two extremes.

everything at anything the president does, you can't question any of it, there must be full immunity from any kind of criminal activity. so there is nothing, no protection for him. we know the justices are going to land, we think, somewhere in between, not with those extremew is that decision as we wait for that? >> it is very critical both in terms of the law and the timing. the court did seem to reject the extremes on both sides. they didn't like the extremes of the trump team in terms of the sweeping immunity, but they also didn't like the court of appeals approach. they felt that it gave too little recognition of the needs of the office. so they could end up sending this back for further evidence and for determinations by the trial court. it seems unlikely that the judge will be able to get that done before the election. florida does not appear to be heading towards a trial before the election -- >> shannon: that's the federal mar-a-lago documents case. >> someone like andy and others who have dealt with classified trials, that is not strange.

the florida schedule is, if anything, moving at a fairly good clip. it often takes years for these cases to get put together when you have this level of classification. the important thing about this case, you pointed out before, remains the optics. new york is being viewed by many as this vortex that won't let trump out, that they keep on hitting him. and this is a major win for his critics. but the question is whether it's a bit of a pi pyrrhic victory because of all of the cases, this on of the legal system. so the result won't come as a surprise. for some, adding the title of a convicted felon could affect their votes. for others, it could affect it the other way. for others, they are repelled by what they see out of new york. i must tell you, the reason i was saddened there was not for the former president.

it was for the new york legal system. i have written, as many of us have, that this is a deeply flawed case. it's wrong. and this is a great legal system. i'm not a new york bar member, i am out of d.c., but i have a huge amount of respect for this system. it has helped define the law in this country, the legal history was made here, on this block, and looking at two court houses, where legendary cases were heard and handed down. it's part of our dna as lawyers, so for many of us, it is a sad moment, because we were hoping this jury might redeem a bit of that integrity. it did not. i am not blaming the jurors. they got instructions that made conviction very likely here. i was one, as opposed to my good friend andy, who believed they would get a verdict today and it would be a conviction, i was one holding out for a possible hung jury because i believe this jury

would see through this. i'm not too sure you can blame them, when you look at the instructions, when you allow a jury to potentially go and disagree on what happened and what crime was being concealed here, it makes it pretty hard to acquit. >> shannon: jonathan, i want to ask you too a little bit about the flavor inside because you commented yesterday that there were, i guess it was two days ago during the summations, i was in for the defense in the morning, you were for the prosecution in the afternoon, you said when it looked like the prosecutor was mocking trump or landing points that were bad for the defense or bad for trump, that the media in the room was reacting to that. it wasn't exactly neutral. >> no, he knew his audience. the media in the room was laughing. >> and we are supposed to be there just covering this as neutral arbiters. >> i was surprised. these are journalists i hope a higher regard than myself

because i am just a commentor, just someone who gives opinion, but no, but every one of those digs landed with that audience. we all expected that, that there would be this human wave. not just of people here on the streets of manhattan, but i'm on the lot of the journalists. i think that with time, they will see the cost of all of this. what happened in that room comes at a cost. it comes at a cost of the rule of law. but the atmosphere in the room at the end, i must say, was solemn and it was riveting. no one moved. now it was funny because they really ramped up security right before the verdict came in. the security said nobody move, nobody stand, and there is a bit of a chuckle because no one was moving. >> shannon: nobody is going anywhere when that verdict is coming in. >> the person that seemed the call must was trump. he continued to talk with his counsel. this did not seem to surprise him in the least.

and i think that's probably a reaction of a lot of people. you basically got out of this trial what you thought you would get. for people that viewed this as a political trial, it is that on steroids. for those who believe this is long-delayed justice, this is exactly what they hoped for. but that final verdict, of course, will come in nov november. >> shannon: so you are a very experienced defense attorney, to the point where if i get in trouble, you are my call. i want you to know, from a jailhouse, jonathan turley, please take my call. you know it is like to be on the losing end of a verdict. but president trump came out today and really fed into what his supporters love about him, we are going to keep fighting. we know that is a long process. how this may reflect the trial court decision on that. what is your confidence in the appellate division or the

appellate process here in new york? >> this case is a little different because, quite frankly, i think the level of reversible error here really is quite considerable. it runs the waterfront of procedural to constitutional problems, including federal constitutional violations. i don't even see how you can meet the unanimity requirement in the way that this thing was instructed. yeah, they were unanimous that some crime was committed on the secondary crime, but it's apparently between the jurors and god as to what that crime was, unless there is going to be some release of a jury form. we have not seen that jury form. >> shannon: any indication when you were inside -- >> no. >> shannon: there is a special verdict form. >> no, we were all hoping there might be a form that would bring clarity on that issue. but no, i think that, in the end, we were going to have a reversal. i'm fairly confident of that. now in the new york appellate system, they have a rule for trump. they are very good lawyers in

the new york system, and credible people who want the syo work the way it is designed. i am eternally an optimist. i was an optimist about a hung jury. and i'm an optimist now about the appellate judges. i think at some point people will step forward and say enough. you know, hating this man is not enough to forget the lack of the evidence. and once again, i do not blame this jury. they were given instructions that made it very easy to convict. and some of them might not have seen a real option not to, given how low these standards seem. >> shannon: okay, jonathan turley, trey gowdy, andy mccarthy, it's been a long several weeks, here we are, but it feels like this is just the start of the next process of this case, the next step of this case. thank you all. we will look and see what your next writing is because andy is prolific and we will see how he boils this all down quickly. and we will do that as we now turn it over to "the five," back

to judge jeanine and the rest of the group there. and a little bit farther north here in manhattan. guys? ♪ ♪ >> dana: thank you, shannon. fox news alert, of course, you know the news, president trump on guilty on all counts. judge jeanine has given some comment, but other people here, greg, let me start with you as we've got the news right here, right about 5:00. >> greg: not surprised, this always felt preordained. it feels more arranged than a marriage in kabul. i guess that's why i'm not that broken up about it. the man thrives on adversity, and so do the american people. and this kind of only adds to the persuasive power by proving his point, that if you are a threat to power, they will try to destroy you. and i do believe that americans love the story of a lone man battling a corrupt system with his back against the wall, as opposed to some invalid who is

now the villain. in this story, and these are all stories, there is a villain and there is a hero, and we now know who the villain is and who is behind this. we just saw something with our very own eyes, but we don't know what was going on behind the scenes, and i believe that there was a conscious collusion of allies that came together, it's pretty obvious, with a private strategy to eliminate a common shared adversary. this happened before with the election, i think it was "time" magazine that wrote about the cabal, government, legal system, the media. so what we saw was the outcome, what we didn't see was everything leading up to it, what was done secretly. and then we get this trial, which is paraded publicly, but we didn't see how this happened. i believe that they just gave popeye a gallon of spinach laced with steroids and math.

and i think you are going to see this -- the numbers aren't going to go in biden's favor. i think this will not only solidify the base, it will radicalize it, it will infuriate the independents and the undecideds, and those who see biden as a desiccated, you know, barely alive person will be, i think i'm energized by their spirits before president trump right now on your screen, left, leaving the courtroom. we are keeping an eye on that motorcade. he is going to be heading back up to his place at trump tower. one thing, to your point come about it, spinach fuel, the trump donation site crashed a few minutes ago. and it is still down, which means, i think to your point, the base will be energized. win red also having similar problems. sentencing would be july 11th, jesse. that's two weeks after the first presidential debate. and four days before the rnc convention gets started. so it is all crunched. >> jesse: yeah, trump was

found guilty because he beat hillary and is about to beat joe biden. i thought i'd be angry. but i feel this cool resignation. this resoluteness. that we are wounded as a cou country. and we are not going to go down. that we are going to get back up. we are going to regain our strength. and then we are going to vanquish the evil forces that are destroying this republic. and if you look at the american people, how are they looking at this? people are desperate for help from these politicians, for safety, for security. and these nitwits, consumed with hatred, our trip planning to destroy a man because he threatens their power. these are wicked people, obsessed with a person, and we will seek justice.

we guarantee that. this man's life is a greek tragedy. from billionaire, bankruptcy. tv star, hollywood walk of fame. divorces. marriages. children. and that was even before he enters politics. and then you have investigations and hoaxes and a pandemic. and now they are trying to incarcerate this person. and the only way this act ends, if he is reelected, and it looks like he will be reelected, june is going to be a pivotal month, though, dana, because biden will speak after this to the nation, he says, and then in just less than a week, hunter biden will go on trial for felony gun charges. and then you will have polling that is going to try to push this into the bloodstream and

show that biden is now closing the gap. we will see if that sticks. and then you have a debate at the end of the month. so if joe biden is still down at the end of june, after all of this, it's over for joe biden. and i thought the president's tone was perfect. he was angry. he said it was rigged, and we all know it was rigged, we all know he can't get a fair trial here, but the key point was that the real verdict is on november 5th. but not 12 men and women get to decide. 330 million men and women get to decide. and that is the key. so get out there and vote. >> dana: an update on the trump donation site is back up and now it is rebranded with "i did nothing wrong." i also want to read to you, because you mentioned the biden campaign, and we did here earlier in the week that president biden is going to make some sort of statement, regardless of the outcome, going to make a statement from the white house. i don't even know if he is there, he might be in delaware. we know that.

but his campaign put a statement out and harold, we will get your take, the biden campaign saying this: in new york today we saw that no one is above the law. donald trump has always mistakenly believed he would never face consequences for breaking the law for his own personal gain, but today's verdict does not change the fact that the american people face a simple reality. there is still only one way to keep donald trump out of the oval office, at the ballot box. convicted felon or not, trump will be the republican nominee for president. the threat trump poses to our democracy has never been greater. he is running an increasingly unhinged campaign of revenge and retribution, pledging to be a dictator on day one and calling for our constitution to be terminated so he can regain a key power. a second trump term means chaos, ripping americans freedoms and fomenting clinical violence and the american people will reject that this november. that is from the biden campaign. now over to you, harold. >> harold: so it is a tough day for the country. had obviously taught they personally for president trump. i think jonathan turley's

remarks about his confidence in our system, our rule of law and judicial system, something i think we all have to cling to. i think the word for me right now is just restraint. those who don't support president trump's politics, who may have some bleed today this afternoon and those who support him, who are disappointed. the one thing i hope people don't walk away -- or that they don't take away from this is that our system doesn't work. i criticize jonathan turley sometimes, but i give him a lot of credit for how he framed this year, at the end of his remarks a few minutes ago. we have an appellate system. we have a supreme court -- appellate system in the state that will review this. president trump does not gain the kind of favor that he wants there, he can appeal even higher. but our system will work this out. and for anyone to suggest that our country that has survived the revolutionary war, a civil war, world war i, world war ii, that we won't be able to make it through this,

i'd say shame on you. we are a huge country, with huge ideals and huge dreams and aspirations. whether you support president trump or not, he will have an opportunity to remedy this. if the law is on his side. and i would hope that those who don't like president trump or who don't like his politics don't take glee in this. don't take joy in this. this is a day in which justice was served at the first court, and we will see what happens here over the next several months, as i'm sure, based on some of the enumeration we heard from judge pirro and even from andy mccarthy and shannon bream and others about the things the president may be able to cite on appeal. but as we sit here tonight, i still have great confidence in our system. i hope we don't go attacking these jurors. it was a human exercise. jury deliberations are. and i am one that helps these jurors do talk and give us a sense of what happened in that jury room. >> dana: and judge -- >> harold: every right to do that. >> dana: i noticed when jonathan turley was talking about the judge's instructions, you made a note to peter even said to trey gowdy, and your

experience, juries usually get it right. what about the jurors here versus the judge, what happened? >> judge jeanine: well, first of all, i think it is important for people to understand that there is a huge connection between the jurors and the judge. the judge is the one who decides, you know, when they go to lunch, when they get a break, what they get for lunch, whether they are going to have their needs -- we don't even hear about matt and that deliberation room. when i was on the bench, and almost every case, i would say, the jurors would say to me, judge, did we get it right? and they want to know my opinion, and i would always say to them, you got it right. you are the jury. and so there is this connection between the judge and the jurors. so i'm not surprised that the verdict -- illegally, i could take this on appeal myself, but what i am most disturbed about is the fact that they come out, the democrats come out with the

biden campaign, you just read, it is an increasingly unhinged campaign of revenge. i mean, donald trump did not sound, when he came out of that courtroom, like he was full of revenge, and they talk about how he will now try to destroy the constitution. it's just the opposite. donald trump is the strongest man i have ever met. there is no one who can withstand what this man has withstood, and i have known him for 40 years. he will fight the fight until the end. and this is a scenario that will energize him. it will energize his base. and hopefully, along with that energy, will, other people who say to themselves, what did donald trump do wrong? what was it again he did wrong? i'm not sure people know what he did wrong in this case. i don't want to hear about, you know, well, the jury decided, it was definitely right. well, you know, the appellate court will decide that. but what i can tell you is that

this is the ultimate, in terms of election interference. we saw it with letitia james. she tried to bankrupt him -- and maybe she did, i don't know. we saw with alvin bragg, who is a soros-funded prosecutor, and all of these prosecutors want to take him down. be careful what you wish for. and i don't want to see this happen because i believe in this system. to not believe in the system means that i wasted three decades of my life. i have to believe in the system. but the problem here is you have just energized the sleeping giant across america. that you know what, their rdas in this country, in all 50 states, who say i have the power to indict. i have a grand jury. let's hit it. especially against a president who protected his own son, finally is coming up for a crime that he allegedly committed, i will say that as a professional, for trial on june 3rd, but where his own department of justice prevented him from even having

to answer for his lack of paying taxes, is some very heavy income years. and now america is saying, you know what, now we see them juxtaposed against each other and it is not fair, and we are a country that was born of revolution. revolution is in our dna. we are fighters. and i hope it is only at the ballot box. don't get me wrong. but i am -- my insides are so angry because this was not a case that should have been brought. >> dana: let me give you one more update come if you don't mind, this is just coming from the ap. even though the white house had put out the statement, greg, that the president would be making an official statement from the white house, apparently now president biden will not address trump's conviction tonight, for people familiar. the plans are fluid but the first comments likely to come in an informal setting in days ahead, probably in response to a reporter's question. >> greg: you know that won't

be planned. >> dana: did point out that president biden is with his family today in delaware on the anniversary of beau's death so not tonight, but unlikely -- why does he talk to the press? in front of marine one? >> greg: very few things in biden's life are fluid except for his meals. i go back to my original point. if you look at russian collusion, the pee tape, hunters laptop, the constant investigations into the trump family, how can you not concluds entire thing is rigged? it just informs that idea that trump has been saying. if they don't like you, they are going to destroy you. they mentioned revenge, and it's interesting because why would they bring that up? it is because they feel somehow that it is warranted. trump didn't mention it. they did. why else would you bring it up? up like a guilty spouse, every time he sees an angry look from

his husband or wife, goes, oh, my god, she knows. you know? they just go, well, you know, we did it. and then of course they always use that old chestnut, no one is above the law. >> judge jeanine: yeah. >> greg: i go back to the original thing kat timpf said, and no one is below the law. except for trump. basically it's going to be anybody affiliated with trump, and a republican, any conservative, all below the law. >> dana: tonight on your show, you have kevin o'leary, who was here yesterday talking about his recent trip overseas when he was trying to bring investment into the country and everybody saying it has hurt the american brand. that was just the trial and the stormy daniels -- >> greg: he is on tonight. the show is on. >> dana: it is on. right? jesse and then harold and then i think we are out. >> jesse: it is hard to imagine how the president feels right now, as someone who was born in new york city. who then came back and had a big part in creating the new york city skyline.

not many people have such a powerful imprint on this city as donald trump. and then page six fixture, big part of the '80s and '90s social scene that defined new york city culture, and then grows that brand into a reality tv star with "the apprentice" at the time of reality tv zenith, and then takes it even higher, to the white house, and keeps new york city safe, keeps new york city wealthy, and then you get a once in a 100 year pandemic, and the man is on the phone with cuomo sending ships, sending ventilators, doing everything he possibly can to help this city, and what does he get in return? he gets a sick va, with -- >> dana: judge. >> jesse: crooked judge and a biden just at the who conspired

to destroy him because he was successful. it's a shame. it's a damn shame. >> dana: harold, alvin bragg is going to have a press conference at 6:30 tonight. >> harold: i'm glad the president is not having any words. it is probably an appropriate the d.a. would probably speak after a case like this. i want to remind people when a super import of the united states overturned abortion and overturned affirmative action in the last year and a half, there was outrage, and i was upset about it, but we have to show restraint. this is how our system works. the court today, judge, you can laugh all you want -- >> judge jeanine: i'm not laughing at all, harold, don't if accuse me of laughing. >> harold: i thought you smirked. >> judge jeanine: i did not smirk. >> harold: i apologize, forgive me. unanimously, a liberal justice wrote a decision in the favor of the national rifle association, saying they had been discriminated, their first amendment rights had been violated by the new york to permit a financial services. for those who believe that president trump has been wrong today, you may be right. and we will find out as

i meant no harm by what i said to you, judge. i thought you -- >> judge jeanine: i did not. this is a very sad day for all of us. larld harold i agree with you. >> judge jeanine: irrespective of party or affiliation. we have seen the criminal justice system weaponized to bring down a candidate for president and a former president. it is historic. this has never happened before in america. i think everyone should take a deep breath before they get upset about anything or accuse anyone of anything else. >> harold: amen, i would agree. >> dana: just wrapping up here on "the five." donald trump found guilty on all 34 counts many alvin bragg will give a press conference at 6:30 p.m. stick around for fox. we're going to have amazing conch tonight from bret baier's show jesse's show laura ingraham exclamation point all the way through tomorrow morning. conch of the trump verdict continues. >> this was a rigged,

disgraceful trial. the real verdict i