was getting witnesses not to cooperate with law enforcement. there's a long history of that happening with donald trump, but it played out at the very last thing in this case, and part of those gag orders were something that even if the judge looks beyond the attacks on himself and his family, which he will, he, remember, found the last violation of the gag order was an attack on the jurors. >> right. >> so it is so hard when you are thinking about who, if they commit this kind of crime, should go to jail? all of those are going to be things that certainly the state is going to be pointing out as something that has to happen. there will be other factors on the other side. there's the mechanics of it. there's the fact that he's running for office. all of those will be factors, but his continued behavior is

something that judge merchan can continue up to the time of sentencing. >> i'm just thinking about the judge in the hearing with the gag orders where he said -- and none of the weight that was going on was lost on him and who this is in front of him. and he said, i don't want to send you to prison, but i have a job to do. we don't know if he's going -- the next thing i think the country's going to be waiting for is that, and what does prison for a former president look like? can it be done in fort brag in a room? >> i don't snow. >> unbelievable. unbelievable thought. thank you not just for being here today when this happened, it's fitting that you are both sitting here next to me, but for being here every day as this goes on. harry lipman, i know we lose you. saying thank you to your contributions to your hours for the trial are ones i'd be going

through and itemizing. thank you very much. for those of you at home joining us just now, you have been watching msnbc continuing coverage of today's historic news. donald trump, now the first former president of the united states to have been convicted of felony crimes. what the "new york times" declares a, quote, stain he will carry as he seeks to regain the presidency. a jury of his peers finding the ex-president guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. part of what prosecutors argue was a coverup of a sex scandal that could have derailed his presidential candidacy before the 2016 election. donald trump called the verdict a, quote, disgrace claiming this, quote, this is far from over, end quote. he is set to be sentenced as we've been discussing on july 11th, just four days before the start of the republican convention in which he will officially become the gop's candidate for president. we will hear from alvin bragg,

the prosecutor who brought this historic case, in a little less than 30 minutes. right now we will of course carry his remarks live when they happen when he makes his way to the podium. the key witness at the center of this case, donald trump's former attorney and fixer, technically described as an accomplice in the plot to conceal hush money payments, michael cohen will join all of us at 8 p.m. eastern right here for his first chance at talking to the press, talking to the public since the trial began. normally at this hour i would be handing things over to my colleague, ari melber, but we're all here together for this historic news. we are joined by our colleague rachel maddow and andrew weissman and "all in" chris hayes just joined in. this is your hour. i prefer it this way. >> i learned, that i read it, that i was not getting up. >> people think everything is

planned. >> thanks for staying. i'm here with rachel. i'll start like this. may 3rd, 2024, is a date in history. it is a conviction of a former president in the united states. that lasts. that is an indelible stain as you quoted "the new york times" put it on him. this is a man who has been running from the long arm of the law for a very long time. this is a country that has witnessed that and in some sense the different poles of the country have agreed on that reality and had different reactions to it. some cheering him on. he's running for president now in even more brazen ways against the law. rachel was just discussing that. he is doing that, openly talking about pardoning convicted murderers, people with federal convictions, people convicted by a jury of their peers and people who committed crimes unrelated to donald trump. the long arm of the law is something he ran from until today. he's convicted on all 34 felony counts by a jury of his peers. he will be sentenced, the judge

says, on july 11th where he will, with his lawyers, face the prospect. he may be thinking about it, rachel, every day from now until july 11th, the pros sperkt that he could just be fined and get a stern warning. that's possible. or he could get some kind of supervised home confinement or he could get a sentence of incarceration where he and his guards would have to report into a local facility where he would serve time. so that's where we are today. it is a very different place than where we were yesterday or two hours ago, and it is a matter of accountability that someone who has flouted the law and run from the law has now found the law caught up with him and he must serve this accountability today. he is now a convicted felon in his one-time home state of new york. >> and he's a convicted -- he's been convicted of 34 felonies, and he is not just a former

president, he is the republican party's nominee for president. i will go back to the point i made earlier, which is i think the republican party has a decision to make now as to whether or not it is okay to be convicted of 34 felonies and still hold the nomination of that party for their presidency -- for the presidency. he is the presumptive nominee. he is not the official nominee of that party. they can choose somebody else at this point, and if the felony convictions mean what they have always meant for everybody else in u.s. history who has encountered the criminal justice system while they were also standing for political office, the republican party will take that seriously and may reconsider that matter. >> can i ask you a question about that? >> yes. >> on that, this trial was about -- its hinge point was the release of the "access hollywood" tape which was the last time they sort of went, do we want to do this. they said yes. the so what are your -- >> i've been thinking about that because i -- once i absorbed this sort of shock of the

unanimous 34 guilty verdicts, the next thing i started to think about was the closing from joshua steinglass the prosecutor because in his closing i pulled this part of the transcript he said to the jury, i suggest to you that the value of this corrupt bargain forged at this trump tower meeting, which is the meeting where they sat up the catch and kill scheme, cannot be overstated. it turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions anyone ever made to the trump campaign. when you put all of these campaign this scheme cooked up by these men at this time could very well be what got president trump elected. they deliberated and decided on all 34 counts we are going to find him guilty. the case put to them by the prosecution was that donald trump likely became president in the first place because of these dozens of felonies committed in order to defraud the public in order to get elected. >> and i just want to say something about the jury here.

>> yeah. >> there's a writer i love, he said when you take a step back, the only people are ordinary people. they kicked him out of office the second time around. and in two different jurors ran off the street. it's popping out addresses. in a civil trial and in this trial, came to each other as equal citizens and a said, yeah, he did it. you don't understand trump's appeal and that he is the real key. really the tribune of the bulk of the people and you elites -- no, no, no. people, real people, our fellow citizens at every hingepoint -- important hinge point have

rejected him or in this case found him plainly guilty of the thing he plainly did. >> why do you think? >> i just have a lot of faith in people. again, i think that -- i don't want to overstate the case. bad people can be elected. it's not some fool proof system. jurors can return wrong verdicts, and we've seen that. one of the things i think is tricky in our discussion of this is not to paint the majesty of the law -- >> throwing it out the window? >> yeah. it's a complicated and often remorseless system that we have constructed here in america. >> would you say that's true of rich white people? >> no, generally it's not. >> with three experienced defense counsel. >> we stood by today. >> to me the process was itself a monumental achievement. >> everyone in that room, again,

as equals, in this municipal building with these career prosecutors and this judge and this jury of average citizens testing the principle of equal justice under the law. can you just take this process we use on other people and apply it to this sflid whatever happened today in that outcome of the jury, that process worked. it would have worked in a hung jury. i would have believed that. the process was its own achievement. >> it was different than your average case because every single human being in that process was subjected to threat and intimidation, including threats to their family by virtue of the fact they were in there, and they still carried this through to the end. >> yeah. it's something we've all covered is regular people who interact with regular jobs in society, particularly marginalized communities, don't have this impression you can never get in trouble. there's never cases like this. not every case is a capital murder case. this was not the most serious case on the books but it was also not nothing. >> yeah. the.

>> you know, we're here talking about this. i mean, i'm not going to read them all, but we have -- if you print out all of the new york cases, business record cases, they go on and on and on. the fact that some people who are uninformed, elite, out of touch, never get in trouble. give yourself information. there's experience and knowledge. their personal experience may be, you don't get in trouble for lying on your taxes? no, you don't get in trouble. you're projecting. >> correct. correct. >> it's not always the first thought. to be legally clear, if you have an honest mistake on your taxes, you don't get incarcerated. if you have a multi-year case, you can. many people have been tried and convicted. what happened today is conviction on that kind of case. another technical point i haven't made, we have andrew here, 6 p.m. on the east coast, let's make it -- >> yeah, you go for it.

>> your time. >> they got here through this process, as we've all said. had it taken longer, that would have been okay. had it been a hung jury, that would have been okay. had they deadlocked and been encouraged to keep going, that would have been okay. but let's observe, they didn't. after several days they said, we're torn, it's tough, what do we do? there are strict rules to fairness to the defendant. the judge can't say you're not leaving nm you agree which can lead to a conviction. it's called an allen charge. new york has its version. this is regulated. it can be reviewed on appeal. they never even gotten to that point. i would observe if it got to that point it would be legal, normal, okay but it wasn't even that close a call. >> but they also didn't go away for five minutes. they went away for hours, slept on it, sent notes, asked questions. >> absolutely thorough. >> it would have also, i think -- people would have judged the jury, forgive the

phrase, had they gone away and seven minutes later come back and -- >> no. >> they clearly engaged substantively with the matter. >> right. as you've pointed out, other politicians have been held to account. governor blagojevich was held to account. the state of illinois did not fall apart because he was patrolled for trying to sell a senate seat through a bribe. that was a good thing, not a bad thing. he was convicted. john edwards was tried on a different murkier case by jack smith, by the way, and it took weeks and they deadlocked. you can't have a deadlock. if they deadlocked to the point of a hung jury, they would cover that. notwithstanding what other people might say regardless because they're not following it, legally i would report this went thorough, detailed but didn't take an extraordinary or unusually long time because they went through 34 counts and found

34 felonies. >> what i said the other night is the summation is maybe this is exactly what it looks like. i think carried the day. i mean, again, it is a little bit -- and i wouldn't -- i really sort of put myself in the posture of not second guessing the jury, whatever their determination was. they were in the room, i wasn't. they heard the case, i didn't. there was a little bit of those occasional gravitas moments, you go through, does that exist? is herschel walker a good senate candidate? have i lost my mind? is her shell walker a good candidate? >> is child labor a bad -- >> no, he's a bad senate candidate. you're not crazy. following the cases as close as we did, it's not a case like anything i've ever reported on. i've reported on criminal cases. it certainly looked like they had the goods on him and they presented the case and they had the paper trail. in the end to have them deliberate as they did and come

back with this, there is something just -- i don't know -- >> it's nice when we can believe our eyes and our ears. >> yes. >> what i thought was notable was that trump's side seemed to be asking them to do what trump asked the voters to do, don't believe what you see, don't believe what you hear, and they didn't do that. can we bring our colleague katie tur in. >> you do it. >> katie tur was inside the courthouse today when the verdict was read. we eagerly await her reporting. katie, go ahead. >> reporter: you know, i was inside the overflow room when the verdict was read. i wanted to be able to see this moment with my own eyes. in about three weeks from today i will have been covering donald trump for nine years. there will not have been a day in the past nine years where i think i have not mentioned his name or at least thought a thought about donald trump. i was there at the time that this trial is regarding, the "access hollywood" tape, the stormy daniels payment.

i've covered the fallout from the "access hollywood" tape. i understood what the prosecution was trying to argue when they were talking about intent and the desire to conceal the stormy daniels payment because what the campaign was going through in those moments when the campaign was falling apart, republicans were abandoning him, when his own campaign staff was abandoning him, when senator mike lee was crying saying he could never possibly support a man who said such things. i've been, you guys have, too, the last nine years we've been living with the consequence of reporting on donald trump and everything that comes with that, the good and frequently the bad. and so today when i was watching donald trump's face as the verdict was read and i was watching as the jury filed out in front of him, i was struck by how not a single one of them from my vantage point looked at his face. they either looked straight ahead or they looked down as they passed by him. i never saw a juror look

directly in his eyes. and you have to imagine now what those jurors -- you have to wonder what they must be feeling. the weight of getting up knowing you have to make this decision alone, how heavy that must have been to get out of bed and understand a decision you make could change the course of american history. who knows how it's going to affect the election, but a decision you make will have some effect. and now to live with that decision and live with the consequences that might come with it. i don't know what judge merchan said to the jury behind closed doors. he was going to have a meeting with them to thank them but i wonder if he did what judge claplan did in the e. jean carroll case was to tell the jurors that it's probably not a good idea to talk to us reporters and the press. obviously you want to understand what was happening. i'd love to hear the thinking. i'd love to understand who thought what about the underlying felonies and the intent, but at the same time, it is completely understandable to know that -- to think that these

jurors would never want to talk to us, would never want their identities released because to have that information out there subjects them to a world of ugliness and potentially a world of violence. we live in such a tense time and such an angry time that i think about what the jurors were feeling when they passed by his table. when it comes to donald trump himself, i wanted to genesee his face as this was read because this is a moment in history and this is a man who's not faced consequences for his actions for the most -- for most of his life. he's been facing a series of them recently in court cases and he has no control over, by the way. he was stone cold. didn't react whatsoever. there was no raise of the eyebrows. there was no shrug. there was no reaction. he sat there looking at the jury, looking at each one of them as they passed by but never made a move.

never muttered anything. never changed his expression. he looked almost deflated from my experience with him, but what a moment in history and what an experience to see this happen in real time and to understand that donald trump, this man who has lived his life basically consequence free, was elected president despite everything that happened in 2016, is now running again, now faces the consequences of being held to account in a jury, held to account, found guilty of multiple felonies by a jury of his peers here in manhattan. >> katie tur putting it in perspective reporting live from the courthouse in manhattan where his fate was sealed by the jury. thank you so much. we want to bring in the former acting u.s. solicitor general of the united states neil katchel here with rachel, nicole, chris and andrew.

neil, may 30th, 2024, donald j. trump convicted on 34 counts. what does this verdict mean? >> i think about it in three words. 34 for 45. 34 counts for the 45th former president of the united states. it's never happened before in our history, and these are felony counts. these aren't slaps on the wrist. they're not misdemeanors. these are not minor things as the prosecutor steinglass said in his closing, donald trump may have been elected president because of these crimes. because of his hiding of his campaign contributions and the political implications, i don't understand that. i'm not a lawyer. but i can tell you what this means about the rule of law. i mean, my parents came to this country. because of the idea that no one is above the law. it can hold someone to account

no matter who you are. and this jury has now decided that. and, ari, i think the most important point is they decided that and trump was guilty against the most difficult standard for the prosecution to show in all of american law. they had to show beyond a reasonable doubt. they had to bring in all 12 jurors. i know how hard that is. i did that in the george floyd murder with my team. that's a scary standard to do. here it was met as it was in the floyd case. and, you know, that's a -- such a tough standard, ari. it's kind of like failing kindergarten. if you are facing a jury trial, you've got to kind of try to fail a jury trial if you are a defendant. you have everything going for you, and yet trump managed to do that. >> yeah. >> i think the last thing i would say, chris's point about -- chris hayes's point about the faith in the system is

right. i think this shows that the system works, but i suspect trump's next move will be, as it always is, to denigrate the system, to attack the institutions, to attack the prosecution, to attack the jury system. don't pop our champaign corks yet because trump's going to run against the system and our job as lawyers is to make sure that people understand how that system works and how it was -- justice was done today. >> neil katchal weighing in here for the first time. we appreciate you doing that. thank you. we're back with our full panel. neil mentioned what chris has said. as well, nicole, you think about we're moments away from alvin bragg, the d.a. who brought this case who was going to be controversial either way. i would note if his name is not super familiar, if you are watching and can't even conjure exactly what he looks like, that is because he has followed the jack smith playbook or the bob muller playbook before that.

d.a. bragg spoke once regarding this case was when they announced the prosecution. it was very spare. so spare he was criticized for not elaborating further where he let his team, the is sis tant d.a.'s do the talking. they released one tweet which they said guilty on all counts. very business like. this is the first time we will hear from the d.a. >> he's been underestimated. he wants to talk to you about other things. donald trump relies on and projects on to everyone else what is inside of him and what's inside of him is a possessed and obsessed partisan actor. alvin bragg just doesn't fit the mold. he did this because the facts and the law supported this. again, not in the time line that a lot of his supporters and

detractors would have liked. some people would have liked to have seen the case that pomeranz investigated go to trial much sooner than alvin bragg brought it. but he was convinced. i think there was reverse engineering and meticulous corroboration if you looked at every witness and every transcript. it's a little more clear and we'll ask him, maybe that's what he was doing. >> the alvin bragg achievement here, andrew, before we got the jury's verdict you were saying, if there is one guilty verdict among these 34 counts, that is a victory for the prosecution. that is -- that counts as a conviction and that is what the prosecution is aiming for. when it came in as all 34, that's obviously something more than a victory for the prosecution. it's a vindication of their approach. and their approach here was

methodical. obviously we saw what the defense's approach was. we saw the prosecution's handling which is everything michael cohen is going to tell you is a narrator of the evidence but we're also going to show you the evidence. they had smoking gun evidence of the crimes. >> if you put here alvin bragg, good background from my friends in law enforcement who have known him for years as a federal prosecutor, as a state prosecutor. the word on alvin bragg is he is the real deal. >> yeah. >> not meaning that he's like i'm going to go out hammer and tongs on everyone, meaning he is a professional who is principled. when he said the case wasn't ready, it was because the case wasn't ready. when he decided to bring the case, it was because he decided the case was ready. in other words, it's like what you see is what you get. there's no back story. it is like this was a guy who's known as the real deal. and then he handled himself that

way. without casting any aspersions on any other way anyone else acts, he did the sort of classic model of i am going to speak in court and this verdict is what he's speaking out through. and now is the time for him to say something, to say something about his team and the one thing everyone saw when you were in court, this was the a-team. it was a stupendous presentation. >> so can we newsify it a bit? do you expect him to take questions? do you expect him to speak to sentencing? >> i don't think he'll talk about sentencing. i think they're going to think long and hard about what to do. i do expect that -- i mean, not to tap myself on the back, but i do think the things i said that are factors are going to be brought up to the court. it is -- by the way, it's an e felony. it's not the most serious felony

under state law, but it is hard to think of an e felony that is more serious in terms of the underlying facts, and that is something with judge merchan, so experienced, been a judge for so long that that can not escape him. >> can i jump in here for a second, anybody joining us, you skipped over an important point we discussed earlier and i want to make sure we resurface that. the next thing that's going to happen in court, both sides are going to submit their advice to the judge, essentially their arguments to the judge as to what the sentencing is going to be. the sentencing is scheduled for july 11th at 10 a.m. you mentioned one of the things judge merchan might consider is the fact that trump violated the gag order in this case. >> right. >> that is allowed to influence the judge's perception in terms of what kind of sentence is warranted here. my question is, is the gag order still in effect? does the gag order stay in effect until sentencing? or is it now over because the

trial itself is over? >> so it's interesting because, you know, one of the things that it focuses on is witnesses and jurors. >> and jurors, right. >> so i think with respect to jurors, it will be interesting to see whether the judge says something and clarifies because that is going to be needed goings forward. >> protecting jurors? >> absolutely. >> to be fair, with witnesses, as the judge said, he is concerned not just about the individual person right in front of him but about the next person. and so if you are concerned about witnesses and jurors, you want to make sure they are protected and feel secure. by the way, it is still surreal that we are having this question about somebody who was president of the united states. >> yeah. >> this is the kind of conversation -- >> mob talk. >> it is. >> having done organized crime cases, you do not -- this is

beyond mob talk. >> yeah. >> they're rational actors, right? >> exactly. this -- this is something you worry about to a certain extent, that is why there is the witness protection program. you would not worry about it at this point but you are. >> more than having done, you were eastern district. you guys do more mafia cases than anyone in the country. >> true. >> we're 90 seconds out from when d.a. brag may speak. andrew was talking to rachel about what could happen in this july sentencing hearing. we have fresh reporting out of the courtroom today, the last thing that happened after the jury was polled and after the judge made his closing remarks, that's really completing, it was, the defense having seen their defendant convicted on all 34 counts made one final push requesting an acquittal motion and they base that on attacking michael cohen who proved to be a good enough witness. not a perfect witness, but clearly good enough. i mentioned we're going to hear from d.a. bragg.

it's news but it will be interesting to hear from michael cohen tonight on msnbc, the first place i believe he'll be speaking since the verdict. andrew, can you speak on that and how they are still going to launch this appeal strategy going on cohen but the sentencing could be harsher if they base this on aggravating factors. >> it will be interesting. the timing of the sentencing and the appeal is going to be very much what i would say, nicole, in your lane. it will be the politics lane in terms of what they think may happen on appeal and whether they think that is something that will benefit them. if they think that it will be useful to have an appellate brief in before the election so that they can get some lackeys to say, oh, yes, this is a -- there's tons of legal error here, they will do that. but for the moment, you know, there will be a sentencing. there is no question that the judge is going to -- no matter

what sentence it is, i have to say, this is -- this is in front of a judge, and i felt this way when i was -- went to a sentencing that amy burman jackson who had the manafort case, gaetz case. where i had my own view. sometimes you are in front of a judge you respect so much and think is so thought full that you really think whatever he does is actually going to be fair. >> yeah. >> it may not be exactly what you would do, but this is one where we have seen a judge who has just done an incredible job getting the case to trial, not being able to put this person -- without having to put the person in jail, trying to make sure there was a fair process. and so the sentencing, i think, will be fascinating, but i do expect that there will -- obviously we know what donald trump will argue, he will argue he should get no time. i think the state will argue there should be some time and cite many factors just to be clear, the gag order violations.

essentially things that go to lack of remorse and recidivism. >> right. >> this is sort of a poster child for somebody doing that. so the next sort of i think big news cycle on this case is going to be that sentencing and the judge's comments because now the judge actually -- the judge is so interesting. they go from being completely fair and impartial but then they get to have a view at the time of sentencing. >> sure. >> as to what they think this means. >> there's also -- i mean, you know, the behavior of this defendant. have you ever seen this? she said, only in cases of like acute mental illness. only in the case of a defendant with like some deep problem with their sort of regulation of functioning have i seen a defendant attack people like this. that's the only -- in my 30 years that i practiced in courts. there's a razor's reason why you don't do that, right? it doesn't make a lot of sense to go after the judge and the

judge's daughter and to rain down like callum on her when that person is in judgment of you. it's not rocket science. i have to just say -- >> it's like fighting with the bouncer. >> exactly. >> you're not going to get in. >> it's fighting with the bouncer. >> nicole, you get that. >> i'm thinking when you take out your camera and you film some of this. it never works. they wouldn't be yelling at you in public. fighting with the bouncer. >> also i've just got to say, probably the most striking aspect of being in that courtroom was judge merchan's temperament. his absolute control of the courtroom, eke juan nimt at this, it exuded this paragon of judicial temperament. in the end judging is a very human undertaking that requires good judgment. and we've seen a lot of judges acting, i think, with very questionable judgment recently, and i just think you cannot say

enough about the temperament and the way that he has conducted this entirety. >> the skill and control of keeping the courtroom. we're talking about his -- these are protesters -- are these -- >> this is outside the courthouse. >> i thought they were at trump tower before. this is outside the courthouse in lower manhattan. we had a live shot moments ago of trump himself outside of trump tower mid town manhattan where he was making those weird, suggestive fist hand things that he does which i don't think is a good idea. he was doing that outside apparently to no people outside trump tower. the crowd seemed to be anti-trump protesters. >> image. >> on the point of judge merchan, you not only have to have the right temperament, you have to do the right things. even though we're talking about him as being very even keel, he snapped to attention, raised his voice, cleared the courtroom,

called something out of bounds, that is a skill set that you need that is more than just do you have good judgment and do you have -- do you have a good temperament to be able to do these things. he's an experienced judge who knew how to take care of a courtroom where there were agents of chaos there. i mean, bringing lots of felons -- >> yeah. >> -- into the front few rows of the court to sit there with the former president while they were trying to break the rules in terms of using their phone, while they were trying to show off that they didn't need to be cleared from the courtroom, while they were pretending they were part of the defense team. people that were ex-cons, that's something you do in order to change the temperature in that courtroom and he held control of it. >> two points on that. one is small. i remember sitting in the courtroom, defendants and lawyers always come back on time in a criminal case. that's part of what chris was just saying. and there was a day where they had come back quite late so it made a show of the judge, of all people, having to wait for the criminal defendant. and he very calmly said to the

lawyers, please don't repeat this because i will have to make a larger thing out of it. the jury wasn't there yet. and i don't want to do that in fairness to you. and he dealt with that very calmly and fairly. second and larger point that you're all gesturing to. donald trump habitually, constantly tests everything. >> everything. >> so if you divide it very simply. if we cleve it to people and the system, what you said earlier, what we've all been discussing, marveling at the jury of his peers, the many witnesses and others who went through this, including above-average attacks, the people have comported themselves really well. >> yes. >> that's why this is an important part of the process. the system has had holes poked in it in the same way that a small child's temper tantrum can poke holes in the restaurant's system even though they haven't memorized how the restaurant works but they've figured out how to bring the restaurant to a

halt. the system when you go to delay tactics at the supreme court. >> yes. >> the way he's worked the federal system. it's not like he knows more about this than jack smith. >> right. >> the chaos, some of that has worked. but the people have stood up against that. >> let me ask you this. i think that what he would have learned from this would have been a mandate that probably wouldn't have been true but he would have taken it with him anyway. the abusive tactics backfired spectacularly. costello giving him the side eye and staring him down why how merchan described it. i wasn't there. that was how he described the conduct. clearing the jury out to rebuke the one witness. tell me if there was anything you could deduce or extrapolate how the jury might have experienced that. >> that's a great question. the jury can pick up an atmosphere. they can pick up a general baseline of how the teams are operating. who is being fair and respectful. that comes in at the margins. it shouldn't reduce the evidence. when you talk about

credibility -- i think we're watching some footage of where we expect the d.a. to speak so we'll cut to that. >> you've got eight minutes. >> but the key there is when you have, for example, one of the only breakthroughs that the defense had for trump where they did raise the legitimate question of if michael cohen described that one big call to donald trump's body guard as the key moment but misremembered or misstated aspects of it, which was a fair claim, do you believe the lawyer? do you find that credible? or does this run of a piece with a bunch of other stuff that was spun, exaggerated, overdone? that's where it might matter. that's where the credibility comes n. and the relationship you have with the judge over those days can matter, and i don't think that worked. the second point on the chaos agent is, the chaos has worked in certain ways where we say it has been effective, right? this courtroom because the judge kept it running, because there

weren't supreme court appointees from donald trump there to interfere, he couldn't run out the clock and he couldn't turn into chaos. what he was left with was not what he claims, not a rigged process, but an evidentiary process. the evidence overwhelmed him as a defendant. >> one of the sort of great asymmetries of the trump era is this way in which the come pulls civilly anti-social behavior never comes back to hurt him whereas the people that come back and square off against him, you have to keep it. there's a temptation to be dragged to his level and you have to keep yourself from doing that. we've seen this play out in a whole bunch of ways. we saw that first in the primary in 2016. people tried to get into nasty exchanges with him and it didn't work. we've seen it time and time again. i think, again, the challenge here that everyone in this entire thing had to keep it 100 for every moment. >> right. >> the d.a.'s office, the judges, the jury, everyone could

not step out of bounds and everyone did it successfully, again, a real testament to all of those individuals that were involved in this. >> the reason we have a camera on this podium here because we are awaiting a statement from -- press conference from alvin bragg. when you say it's a press conference, that means you take questions. we shall see. it brings me back to the last time we had a moment like this with alvin bragg, which was at the indictment. when the criminal information or other term like that was filed explaining the charges against donald trump and why they were -- why they were filed, you might remember that alvin bragg also gave a press statement, and i remember covering it that night, when he was just getting hammered by the press because of the way the charges were structured. >> yes. >> falsifying business records can be a misdemeanor unless you false phi business records to commit or conceal another crime. and everybody was saying, what's the other crime, what's the other crime, what's the other crime? alvin bragg stuck to his guns basically in his very sort of --

i don't mean this in a bad way, in a schleppy way, i don't need to tell you. we don't need to give you a specific time. by the way, we don't need to prove that crime at trial. the press corps went nuts. no, we want to hear the underlying crime. we want to know what the predicate is. no, that's not the way the law works here. people were so frustrated. there was so much pseudo legal analysis saying that must mean this is not a good case. when it came to the end of this trial, the jury instructions, we see the prosecution prevail with having judge merchan tell these jurors, you can pick any number of crimes to use as the predicate for why this was elevated for a felony. they don't need to pick one. he was right about that from the beginning and he was right about it in the law and it was vindicated in the unanimous 34 guilty verdicts. >> the jury came back to it. >> right. >> if they chose the election

interference, the jury came back to that if you are to believe that one of the four things they wanted was the corroborated testimony from cohen and pecker about the trump tower meeting. >> absolutely. this is one where again i really think alvin brag is the real deal and played it by the book. and his point was, this is what we do day in and day out. we bring these cases. we use the false business records crime to bring false business record cases and we bring them as felonies. we do not just bring them as misdemeanors and we are treating him the same. then he didn't play to the press. i mean, this is -- this is sort of a remarkable time. and i just want to go back to david pecker because i think for many of us, including myself, that changed the way i thought about the case. that was -- >> the way he testified? >> that he was saying this is a scheme to -- the way it got phrased in opening was there is

this back end false business record crime. that is the coverup. it is the coverup of the first part of his scheme, which is 2016 election interference where it may have made the difference, but it doesn't matter, that was the intent. this is your point -- >> because you're on the chronology, let's see if we can get -- is there a wider shot we can take of the entire press conference area? i believe on the right we're going to see what you're talking about, andrew. again, we are waiting for the d.a. >> that looks like a relatively familiar chart. >> i think that's the same chart they used when they launched this to explain the funneling of the money and how it became this criminal conspiracy. why it was different than what trump's lawyers argued repeatedly in their defense, that there are secrecy contracts that are legal. some people sign them when they leave employment, right? the fact that you sign an agreement related to money, not talk about your employer or someone, that can be legal. but as the prosecutor put it, andrew, a contract to have

somebody hurt or killed is a type of contract. contracts are legal. that contract is not. and so on the right i believe, yeah, that's what we're going to see, andrew, which goes to the d.a. circling back saying this is the rule of law. it never changed, the theory. it only got more specific because we argue it in the court, not in the press. >> interesting that he's doing it and will do it in this detailed way because there were no cameras in the courtroom. there was no audio. >> right. >> there was no ability. we had to translate for everyone, and be this is an opportunity now post verdict for him to be able to say, i want to speak about -- because he understands the historic importance. i want to speak to the public now since it cannot affect the jury about what the charges were and why there was guilt here. >> rachel? >> looking at -- in terms of what we expect here, we do think -- we do think that alvin bragg is going to take questions here. we do think he's going to speak potentially with members of his

prosecution team, that it will not be him alone. it will be interesting to see whether they take questions as well. in terms of the terminology and the specifics of what has happened here, donald trump has been convicted on 34 felony counts. he technically becomes a convicted felon at sentencing, but being -- whatever that means. now that he has been convicted of felonies, there are consequences for him in terms of his citizenship. in new york state, which is where he's been convicted, as far as i understand it as a person who's been convicted of a felony, he's not able to apply for a permit to carry a firearm, for example. he's also not able to get a real estate license, which is -- >> huh. >> -- might be an issue. >> he may still be able to vote in florida. >> yes. >> because i think florida will honor the new york rule. in other words, if it had been a florida conviction, he would be in this odd position of running for office but not being able to vote for himself.

>> yes. >> but i think since it's a new york conviction, that will not be the case. >> i believe he would lose his ability to vote while in prison, while he was imprisoned in new york if he is imprisoned in new york. >> yes. >> but not in an ongoing way. >> andrew, we're going to do more of the interstate federalism tomorrow. >> that's a tease. >> a break? >> i thought -- i was like, that's great. >> that was actually a joke off camera. the if i'm talking, it was probably a bad joke. i wanted to ask chris hayes to come back in while we are waiting for the d.a. in how people process this. we are all prosetsing this. this is a huge and historic moment, donald trump convicted on all felonies. people were tuned in last month -- let's listen in. the d.a. who won this conviction is about to speak. d.a. brag in new york city.

>> good evening. first and foremost, i want to thank the jury for its service. jurors perform a fundamental civic duty. their service is literally the cornerstone of our judicial system. we should all be thankful for the careful attention that this jury paid to the evidence and the law and their time and commitment over these past several weeks. twelve everyday new yorkers, and of course our alternates, heard testimony from 22 witnesses,

including former and current employees of the defendant, media executives, book publishers, custodians of records and others. they reviewed call logs, text messages and emails. they heard recordings. they saw checks and invoices, bank statements and calendar appointments. this type of white collar prosecution is core to what we do at the manhattan district attorney's office. in the 1930s district attorney thomas dewey ushered in the era of the modern independent professional prosecutor. for now nearly 90 years dedicated professionals in this office have built upon that fine tradition. a major part of our practice during that nearly 90 years has been public integrity work,

including cases involving jury lists, local and state electeds, public servants and others. i want to thank this phenomenal prosecution team embodying the finest traditions of this office, professionalism, integrity, dedication and service. they are model public servants and i am proud and humbled to serve side by side with them. twelve everyday jurors vowed to make a decision based on the evidence and the law. and the evidence and the law alone.

they found donald j. trump is guilty of 34 counts to steal the 2016 election. while this defendant may be unlike any other in american history, we arrived at this trial and ultimately today at this verdict in the same manner as every other case that comes through the courtroom doors, by following the facts and the law and doing so without fear or favor. i want to conclude by expressing deep gratitude to the nypd and the officers of -- the officers of the office court administration for securing the courthouse, all of our safety, making sure the courthouse and all of the other matters that are important in their own right, continued seamlessly.

they will continue to be and have always been incredible partners. thank you. >> do you plan to request a prison sentence? for donald trump's multiple violations of the gag order put in place should factor in? >> the judge scheduled sentencing for july 11th. we will speak in court at that time. we also set a motion schedule. we'll speak as we have done throughout this proceeding. >> donald trump has repeatedly targeted you personally and members of your prosecution team. do you have a response to the former president now that the trial is concluded? >> i do not. [ inaudible question ]

how do you think of all that now? >> i did my job. our job is to follow the facts and the law without fear or favor. and that's exactly what we did here. what i feel is gratitude to work alongside phenomenal public servants who do that each and every day, in matters that you all write about and make the press, and in lots of matters that you don't. i did my job. we did our job. many voices out there, the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury and the jury has spoken. >> mr. steinglass, many people said the prosecution was masterful and flawless. just wanted to know how you feel at this moment. how do you feel? >> mr. steinglass, i think some

of you probably saw him speak. for a little bit the other day. so he's done his job. as has this team, and he just told me, tell him how i feel. i'll say, just enormous gratitude. our system, i talk about the jurors at the beginning of my remarks. we have a phenomenal system. 12 everyday new yorkers, they listened to the judge's directions. they followed the evidence. you saw them in court every day. they were careful and attentive. so i feel deep gratitude to work alongside them, to be a part of this system, and i just wanted to echo that this is what we're doing every single day. during this trial, just this week, ghost gun indictment, grimaldi's wage theft plea resolution. sex crimes, convictions, all

sorts of work that's being done by phenomenal public servants. we're before you today on this, obviously consequential matter, but this is what we do every day. we follow the facts and the law. without fear or favor. >> if a jail sentence is in the cards, it is likely trump and his attorneys would seek a stay on enforcement of that sentence and appeal. if that were the scenario, would your office object to staying the sentence? >> i'm going to let our words in court speak for themselves when we get to the sentencing matter. i'm not going to address hypotheticals. they raise arguments, we'll respond. i think your question really underscores an important point. this is an active ongoing matter. we have other faces of this going ahead. we'll continue to do our speaking about this matter, about issues like that in court. >> from day one, the viability of this case has been

questioned, in all sorts of media outlets, all over the place, including from the defendant himself. can you respond to any of that, how you feel now that you have gotten a conviction? >> so, my response again, is i did my job. and i think particularly i talked about the history of the office, my personal history. i started as a prosecutor in 2003 in the public integrity unit in the new york attorney general's office. i served also in the public integrity unit in the southern district of new york. these are the kinds of cases i have done personally and it's a hallmark and tradition of this office i'm proud to lead, and i don't want to go into the whole boddo of litigation, but we now have a federal court decision, ruling on the legal theories. we had a state court decision on the omnibus motions. but most importantly, today we have the most important voice of

all, that's the voice of the jurors. they have spoken. donald j. trump has been convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records. thank you. >> your office has been investigating this case since -- >> are you concerned about retribution if trump is elected president? >> you went to the supreme court twice. any comment on that? >> we have been listening to manhattan d.a. alvin bragg making his first comments since the conviction of donald trump on 34 felony counts today. also, we should note, his first comments since he first announced this very set of indictments when he first announced there would be a trial. he has now won that trial, they'll continue to pursue an ongoing matter, without fear or favor, and asked the big question which we had been wondering here, what will the prosecutors do and request regarding a potential jail or incarceration for the defendant who has now been convicted on all felony counts and the d.a.

declined to answer that in any way, referring to the practice he's been using on most other aspects of this case, saying they will do their talking in court. you're watching msnbc's special coverage on what is now the verdict, the conviction of donald trump, and we're joined by our full panel. alex wagner and lawyer andrew weissmann, joy reid is here, and jen psaki. welcome to all of you. joy, i mentioned earlier, donald trump has spent not only his recent political life, but much of his public life on the run from the long arm of the law. today, it caught up with him. your thoughts about this verdict. >> well, not on the run from the long arm of the law, but also touting law and order. he was incredible hawkish on the idea of convicting the exonerated central park five. he wanted the death penalty for them. they were tried in the same courthouse where he was tried over the past couple of months. he was very hawkish on the idea that police need to be harsher

in the way they put people into their police cars and vehicles. that they need to, you know, don't be so nice. he's been a big backer of the idea that police should be freed from any sort of legal, you know, liability for hurting people, for killing people. he wants to unleash them. he's vowed to unleash them. so he has claimed to be a law and order guy. while himself evading the law, and he said that there are two systems of justice because he was caught unawares that he could actually have to ever face the criminal justice system. and i want to say that he's also been incredibly disparaging of the man we just saw. he's attacked alvin bragg. he's attacked his family. he's caused him to face death threats, to face threats in the city of new york. he has attacked this judge. he attacked the judge's family. he's been on the attack against all of the pillars of our judicial system while also repeatedly throughout his life breaking the law. there's so much irony in what

happened today. i will also say that alvin bragg, and you said this earlier and i want to echo what you said. alvin bragg took a lot of heat for bringing this case. he was doubted by many. people picked apart whether the case made sense, whether it was the right time. this was called the least important case. guess what, it's the only case that will likely go to trial before the election. it was a success, and it was done methodically, it was done carefully, and it turned out that he did have an underlying crime as andrew has talked about a lot to go with these what would have been non-felony counts. so i think that alvin bragg deserves his flowers today. and i'll finish by saying this. we should note the timeline of what is happening going forward. on july 11, donald trump will be sentenced, and four days later on july 15th, the republican national convention will open in milwaukee. we now face the reality that the man who will be nominated add

that convention will have been not just convicted but sentenced for 34 felony counts in his home state. and i know there's some question about whether or not he will lose his right to vote. but the idea that someone who could have to beg the governor of florida to restore his voting rights can also be on the ballot in the state of florida and in every other state in this country doesn't say great things about our founders but it says great things about the fact that justice is indeed blind. it is blind to the fact that you are president. it is blind to the fact you're a bully. it's blind to the fact you're a hateful, angry man who hates the same system he wants to lead. it's blind, and that actually today is good news. >> listen, alvin bragg is now a two-time winner in the court of holding trump and his organizations to account. this is a person who also secured a criminal conviction for the trump org