here. he is also talking about michael cohen, notes he has been disbarred for other reasons yet allowed to talk like he was george washington. trump is not holding back here. >> neither would most of us when we know we aren't going to jail no matter what we say. there is a certain safety net when you know that you aren't going to get probation, you feel a little bit liberated. i think andy and i both used the word victory when you win the battle and lose the war. alvin bragg you spent months convicting donald trump and got absolutely nothing for it except putting him in the history books as the first republican since george bush to win the popular vote and electoral college. if you wanted to mount him to mount rushmore, bragg and merchan, you were successful. when you know you are not going to jail you can tell the judge exactly what you think.

>> dana: also, andy, steinglass with the prosecution, he said this morning that this sentencing will bring this case to its finale. but that's not true if it's going to then be appealed to the supreme court. this is not the last word. >> no, but they've been talking about finality again and again because the important thing to them is they want to stamp trump with the scarlet letter of a formal criminal conviction. in that sense you have finality in the proceedings in the trial court. and as we've all said, the importance of that is now we can get on to, as johnd before, there are 12 reversible errors, at least, in this case. i happen to think the jury not being asked to actually render a verdict on the most important question in the case unanimously is the most egregious one. you can take your pick beginning

with the fact that the judge is an activist democrat who contributed to joe biden's 2020 campaign against trump, against state ethics rules. >> dana: we have just heard that trump has finished speaking and that merchan, the judge is starting the sentencing right now. >> john: wrapping up trump said it is a great embarrass nullity to the state of new york and then pointed out this idea that michael call anglo left his position or deputy or assistant attorney general at the department of justice to take on the matter of a humble state prosecutor for this case. that was something that a lot of people said that draws a direct connection between what is going on in new york city and what is going on at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. what do you think? >> it is interesting that in these final remarks trump is opening up about many of these

issues and raised some of these themes before but also under a gag order. something that many of us felt was excessive. you had this acting new york justice in manhattan effectively controlling the leading candidate for the presidency on a subject that was important to many voters. many voters saw what merchan did in his courtroom as raw lawfare and saw these types of cross -- in my view that's the verdict here. i don't think this case is likely to be upheeled. i hope it won't be. the verdict on the new york court system is going to really stand the test of time. this was where the new york court system failed in a spectacular fashion, allowed people like bragg, attorney general james and others to weaponize their system.

it will take years for new york to regain a sense of legitimacy in the eyes of many citizens, including many business people who look at this and say but for the grace of god go i. but the one thing that i think that trump can take some solace in he can appeal this case in whole. as andy was talking about, there are some just glaring in my view reversible errors. i agree with andy, the one that takes my breath away even beyond the fact it is a made up criminal case with a made-up crime, is that the judge did not require the jury to unanimously agree on what happened. in order to zap that dead misdemeanor to life, they needed the secondary crime. what was trump trying to hide? what was he trying to achieve? merchan just said come up with anything, it doesn't matter. you choose on this menu and you

don't have to tell us what you actually think happened in this case. that should be outrageous to everyone, including critics. and i have to give credit over at cnn their senior analyst said it was unprecedented, absurd. the new york senator from new jersey recently used stronger language to condemn this case. those are voices from the left that i want to give credit to. but the silence, the deafening silence is coming from the new york legal system itself. that's where i think many of us are rather shocked that we ever got to this point to see this sentence come down in a case that should never have been brought. >> dana: andy, todd blanch is the defense attorney with trump today. he will be starting at the justice department january 20th. not a senate confirmed position, so it is. so he will have to be senate confirmed and probably not talk too much outside of this until

then. can you project a little bit ahead. if they are saying what they are saying about the new york system and also about the overall court proceedings in america and people not having confidence, what can or should or do you anticipate todd blanch and pam bondi might do there. >> i think the first flash book. trey and i talked about this before we came in. is probably the case in new york. in most of the country there is no problem if the state pros -- in new york they have equitable double jeopardy. what that meant as a federal prosecutor here we could win the turf battle. because if we go first, the state can't go at all.

they are basically out as we used to say. i thought it was interesting the biden justice department evidently made a deal with bragg that new york could go first on mangione and then the feds would go. i would be very surprised if the trump justice department feels like they have to honor that deal. >> i hate to use the word collusion but pam bondi, todd blanch, kash pat elf they are confirmed will find out if there was collusion between bragg and garland to bring the case in state court. if there was collusion we'll know about it in about three months. >> john: more notes from inside the courtroom. judge merchan in says the trump trial was no different than all of the other criminal trials in the building. merchan attempting to create

equivalents between trump and ordinary criminals and won the presidency and how it is in fact different. andy, you want to tackle that one. the trump case is no different than any other case that comes into his courtroom. >> i think it is different because the defendant is in the courtroom. alvin bragg's new york that doesn't often happen. we have criminals who commit very serious crimes who never actually get charged and never find their way into the courtroom. when they get into one of alvin bragg's courtrooms if they start out with a felony, if it gets down to a misdemeanor that's actually lucky for the public. very often there is not even misdemeanor dispositions. i just think it is like living in an alternative universe listening to these guys if you actually spend time in new york, if you grew up in new york like i did, and you saw the plummeting of crime from the 90s for the 25 years after that, which was accomplished by actual prosecution of cases, and then

you have a district attorney who comes in with what he called the day one memo, which basically said there is a new regime in town and what we'll try is non-prosecution. that's what criminals get in new york unless their name is donald trump. >> dana: wanted to ask you about something, trey, which is the amounts of taxpayer dollars that has gone forward in this prosecution, plus all of the legal costs for the defendant who is the president-elect. >> and all the other cases that were not able to be brought to trial because they wasted time on this one. all the sex assault victims, robbery victims. court time is a appreciate use resource. to waste this time on a case where even the prosecution agrees you should not spend a minute. if juan merchan says this case was not handled any differently that tells me there are lots of bad trials going on in new york. one other point on appeal, when

i was in the courtroom trump's expert was not allowed to testify. the same question was asked from the defense and prosecution with different rulings. if he says that he is a bad judge in every case. the rulings were different depending who did the objecting. >> john: there is consensus that there is reverseible error committed during the trump trial. yet in the new york court system, trump has pretty much gotten locked out of all of his petitions to either have the case thrown out or delayed or sentencing delayed or whatever. what makes you believe that he could prevail on appeal given his track record with the new york court system which a lot of people believe is politically aligned against him? >> very few people have high

expectations at this point for the new york legal system. it hurts me to say that. i have had a great respect for that system for many years as have many others. but there is also a problem in these appeals. they kept on taking these three-point shots mid trial, shortly after the verdict. those are always disfavored and so the chances of prevailing are not high. you have a better chance once the case itself has been appealed but eventually this will go to the supreme court and the key is escaping the vortex that is the new york court system. >> john: we should point out. court is over. sentence imposed. unconditional discharge. as we bring in mark levin for his comments. judge merchan imposed no jail time, no fine, no punishment that anyone can discern with the exception that he is now branded

donald trump with a scarlet letter of a big f on his for head that he is a convicted felon. how does all this strike you? >> i will tell you how it strikes me. when you look at cases throughout history, not just in the united states but all over the world, this will be remembered as one of the worst. this will be remembered as an absolute injustice from the beginning. i haven't been able to listen much because i was at the doctor, to some of the commentary but i would say that appeals and the new york system and they don't normally take them and so forth is all quite true. the problem here, i think the four other justices on the court, originalists understood it was crucial the supreme court take up this case the way they took up bush versus gore because it is the most extraordinarily outrageous case in modern times. you have three great lawyers telling you over and over again why that's the case. you are stuck in a legal system

that is for whatever reason highly corrupt and partisan. but the supreme court had a responsibility to defend the supreme court. to defend the federal judiciary and the federal constitution. you have an elected left wing bomb throwing prosecutor, you have a completely rogue state judge at every step he orchestrated this thing just like he orchestrated today's a bomb nation. four justice is wanted to take up this case. they had enough reason to do it. the arguments were laid out not just by president trump's lawyers but also by former attorney general meece's brief. this court if it had rehnquist as the chief justice or scalia on this court it would have been a 6-three. taken the case and fixed it. what do i mean by fixed it? depending on what the state

appel at go do. this case is going back to the supreme court. what's the supreme court going to say? we aren't going to take it? of course they'll take it. what will they say then? they said let the process play out. that's all we know from this order. let the process play out. no, you don't let a corrupt process that these gentleman have been talking about from beginning to end play out particularly when you talk about an incoming president of the united states where the appellate process for this corrupt process will be going on while he is president of the united states. so this court had an extraordinary responsibility like it rarely does to set this straight. and now the precedent is set. that is that you will be able to drag candidates, maybe for president, some d.a. through a corrupt process that has to play out all the way to the end until

the supreme court is going to look at it. i strongly disagree with what roberts and barrett did here. throw in with the three typical hard liners on the left. i strongly agree with what i think is the impression of the four other justices. it was close, 5-four said we have to fix this situation now. we cannot give our court to this process. so they did not defend the federal judiciary. they did not defend the constitutional system or themselves. when they take up the case it is far more complicated now for them to explain why they are taking up the case and why god willing if the state appellate courts don't, they'll reverse. it is an absolute abomination.

>> does this mean the gag order is now lifted? he was allowed to talk. i'm sure he has pent up thoughts about all of this but maybe wants to move forward because he has a lot on his plate trying to hit the ground running in ten days. >> i don't know what they've done. if i'm the president of the united states i would ignore the gag order and tell the judge you hold me in contempt if that's what you want to do and i will litigate that issue to the end of the earth. he is the president of the united states. he needs to be able to speak freely. that gag order was just part of a long list of unconstitutional acts by this man and he should violate it. if the judge doesn't like it, too damn bad. what is he going to do, send him to prison? then the supreme court will take up the case. then he can resolve the matter. you see, what merchan did here, the reason he didn't imprison him or give him an ankle brace

let, he knew the supreme court would then take up the case because he would be interfering with the function of the federal government. he would be interfering with the office of the president. so what has he done? this guy is a schemer. i will put the scarlet letter on, but i'm not going to punish him because then i will have a problem with the supreme court. just briefly think about that. in other words, if he said i will imprison the president -- or he says he will get an anklet or fine him for a half million or any other things does anyone doubt the supreme court wouldn't take that up? the supreme court would take it up. it would take it up in part because of a memo from the department of justice office of legal council. merchan said i will escape this. the -- really, merchan is not

going to punish him is one of the reasons to let it go. they were played. those four justices in the minority knew that and saw that. i'm sure they did. again, i think the rehnquist and scalia would have seen it. they had more reason to take this case than they did bush versus gore and now we're stuck with it. >> dana: mark, thank you so much. we just showed you video of todd blanch, president trump's lawyer, who has left the courtroom. andy, where does this go from here? if the gag order doesn't exist anymore, what would you suggest? >> i think finality for the goose is finality for the gander. final means it is over, which means merchan doesn't have any jurisdiction over this case anymore. going up on appeal the case is over. that's what they said they wanted. that would be the end of the case. to my mind the end of the case means it is the end of merchan's

jurisdiction to tell president trump anything. he will have to wait for the next case. >> john: i reached out to the president-elect to see if he has anything to see. see if we hear back from him. trey, you talk about the idea that he is not allowed to vote in the mid-terms as a convicted felon, not allowed to possess a firearm but allowed to be commander-in-chief of the military, he can be the economist in chief when it comes to treasury and finances and the economy of this great nation of ours. so other than the two things that you've mentioned, does it really have any effect at all on him, his ability to carry out his president? >> no, but there are collateral consequences being adjudicated a felon following you for the rest of your life. you have to forever disclose on every credit application.

but every questionnaire asks have you been convicted of a crime for which you could have been sentenced to more than one year. even though he didn't get any time he is still a felon because he could have gotten more than one year. so yeah, there are collateral consequences that will follow him to the grave, which is why this needs to be appealed and the sooner they get it to federal court, the better his chances are. >> john: gentlemen, stand by for a second. we want to add now to the conversation with mary kathryn hamm, your thoughts about all of this because it merely looks like alvin bragg and judge merchan went on a big game hunt. they bagged their trophy and they hung him on the wall with the scarlet letter of f on his forehead now. no practical purpose in terms of the president's abilities to be able to carry out his duties as president but as trey pointed out the felony conviction

follows him around until it's overturned or until the day he dies. how do you view all of this? >> i think you are right. to me it was an obvious sham from the beginning. you had to coble together a novel form of charging him and turn non-felonies into a felonies that were past the statute of limitations. but by the virtue of just making this novel charge you know it is for him specifically, not because no one is above the law. because they wanted him. now, the real life consequences. >> john: he had stopped a person who stole money and paid -- >> the real life consequences outside of this courtroom outside of merchan and bragg's desire to take him down is that the american people saw that it was a sham. the american people were not concerned about these many counting discrepancies turned to

felonies and told merchan and bragg that and all the people who supported this by electing donald trump. i am glad he will be able to execute his duties. i think the fact that this thing -- it needs to go to appeal. it should be corrected. it was a very, very bad conviction. >> dana: what about the politics of it in a way when you think about the democrats who have basically not even found their footing since their loss in november. part of their calculation was that president trump would be convicted felon, therefore america would never reelect him and tarnished forever and you would never see him again. that didn't happen. the opposite happened. their calculation politically was so off and seems to me we're watching liberalism collapse in governments across the world and i would even say the state government of california right now. you see their policies did not work, the approach of lawfare did not work, and now they are in the wilderness.

>> i would wholeheartedly agree. the question is now in new york will it hurt alvin bragg? i don't think so. look at progressive prosecutors in california. they're being recalled right and left. i don't know that alvin bragg learned any lessons but the rest of the democrats should unless they speaking of the wilderness want to be there for the next 40 years. alvin bragg and juan merchan did more to help get donald trump reelected, popular vote and electoral than any republican strategist i can think of. >> dana: i think that's true. i don't know if you want to weigh in on that, john. it is stunning to me that they still pinned all of their hopes on this even when it was falling apart. >> john: yeah, what is interesting, too, is that as mary kathryn was pointing out, you had all of these charges and all of this lawfare that was allayed against trump and he won the popular vote, he won all

seven swing states decisively and now you have the ceos of all these tech companies coming to bend the knee. it is like a "game of thrones" down there at mar-a-lago. they bend the knee and kiss the ring. democratic politicians who seem to have gone completely quiet on this idea of resisting trump. the resistance is crumbling. you have a prosecutor in manhattan and a friendly judge who are willing to try to say well doesn't matter what the american public decided. doesn't matter what the ceos of these companies or doesn't matter what politicians in washington are doing. we think he is a bad guy and we want the country to know about it. to what end? >> as trey and dana point out, the real life consequences are resistance didn't work. this lawfare didn't work. it didn't work because people saw it was a misuse of the justice system. liberals convinced themselves trump is uniquely bad threat and

whatever we uniquely do that is bad to get him is good. a lot of people don't feel that way because it is not good. when they see the misuse of the system they want to fight back against it. when it comes to people coming to trump down at mar-a-lago, we have the tech folks, fetterman saying he will meet with him. this is how trump should be been dealt with from the beginning. he is flexible, not an ideologue. when you talk to him the last thing in his ear is what he acts upon. if democrats had taken that tack with him in 2016 they would be in a better place now than resistance. >> john: there is an audio recording of the court proceedings that we'll be able to play back and hear a lot verbatim what went on in court. >> dana: let's get to kerri urbahn. she saw everything. your thoughts as we wrap up this

sentencing portion but await to hear what you heard in the courtroom. >> we heard from the lead prosecutor joshua steinglass and todd blanch, trump's attorney. he will be the number two in the department of justice and donald trump and from judge merchan. donald trump gave an effective statement where he said quite simply i was indicted because my accountant labeled legal expenses legal expenses and that's why i'm here. this person could have labeled them concrete or electrical or anything like that. they didn't. they were legal expenses because they were payments to a lawyer. logged as such and now i've been indict i had. he also talked about michael cohen said how he was a disbarred attorney but yet allowed to speak as if he was george washington. he pointed from the screen and

could see matthew colangelo, who used to be a top senior official at the department of justice and took a career downgrade to go join alvin bragg and prosecute donald trump. he pointed him out and said this is evidence that the department of justice was involved. that was his perspective. and then he said i thought it was an effective line. he said speaking to judge merchan he said people watched the trial in your courtroom and the people voted decisively. i won all seven swing states and as he was saying that i was thinking about as i walked into the courtroom that the only protestors per se who were here were trump supporters, as i stand here now i look into a square looking at people holding trump flags, looking at a person who has a sign that says a enough is enough. we voted. we don't want this lawfare anymore. on the audio playbook we're about to get from the court, it is noteworthy that during the trial there was no audio, there

were no cameras, but for this particular sentencing judge merchan agreed to have audio. i can't help but think if it is because he wants the world to hear his voice sentence donald trump. we weren't able to have that before. this is how these things go. >> john: let me ask you this question. you were there as donald trump made his statement to the court. he has been under a gag order for all these many months, which he continues to say does not allow him to say the things that he wants to say but he appeared to say a few of the things he has been hanging onto in the court. how did his statement to the court strike you? >> it was pretty tempered. he was making a very effective, reasonable legal argument the entire time. he did mention the gag order and off handedly said i'm probably still under it right now. joshua steinglass, the prosecutor for the d.a.'s office, his tone was different

than donald trump's. he was dramatic, a bit over the top and put se -- very critical of donald trump and his role in this country and how he handles himself. i thought it was a bit disconnected from reality in terms of what just happened two months ago with the election and thought it was a bit unnecessary. judge merchan typically a soft spoken person and he continued to be so today. he talked about how much he thought through this decision, he defended his rejection of the immunity argument, also defended unconditional discharge and at the end he wished donald trump godspeed as he takes his second term. >> dana: andy, we are about to hear this play back. anything you are looking to hear? in a way i feel like well, it is what it is. this is where we are.

>> i think i always wondered how trump would have done as a witness. we see him as a larger than life political figure, which is very different from communicating in a setting where there is a judge, so there is a referee. you can't get away with doing speeches. you have to answer the questions. but i thought that he is his own best advocate in this setting. i always thought in a jury trial, he would have been effective looking at the jurors in the eye the way he looks the voters in the eye and making his point. i think as kerri pointed out a lot of the things he said today are true. when he talks about that that was an expense where he paid a lawyer. the testimony was the guy had a dropdown menu and it was a legal expense because he was paying a lawyer. there wasn't any idea of concealment attached to it.

the other thing i think is this whole idea -- i wouldn't just put it on the district attorney who came from the justice department who was on the case. to me the dog that didn't bite in the case that was the most important one is if this had been anyone other than trump, the justice department would never have sat on its hands while a district attorney in some city or state around the country decided to try to enforce federal campaign finance law, which congress gives them the justice department exclusive jurisdiction over. to me the biggest sign of collusion between the feds and the state was the fact that the feds did nothing about that. >> john: dana, i told you a moment ago i reached out to the president-elect to see if he had anything to say in the wake of the sentencing. he just got back to me with this statement quote. the radical democrats have lost another pathetic, unamerican

witch hunt after tens of millions of dollars wasting six years of work that should have been spent on protecting new yorkers from violent crime that is destroying the city and state coordinating with the biden-harris department of injustice-in-lawless weaponization and bringing baseless, illegal and fake charges against your 45th and 47th president, me. i was given and unconditional discharge. there is no case, there was never a case, and this whole scam fully deserves to be dismissed. the real jury, the american people, have spoken by re-electing me with a mandate in one of the most consequential -- this had no crime, no damages, no proof, no law. only a highly conflicted judge, star witnessed disbarred, disgraced serial perjury and criminal election interference.

today's event was a despicable charade. now we'll appeal it and restore the trust of americans in our once great systems of justice. make america great again. that is a statement from the incoming president on what happened today. if the gag order is not off it would appear to be. >> dana: i wonder about mary kathryn we talk about a lot about your friends, circle, the moms out there who voted on the economy, immigration, crime and how something like this sits with them. >> the truth is that they care about their own families more than this. it was unconvincing for all the reasons that the president-elect mentioned that this was a real criminal case. that this was something they should worry about when they are worrying about their grocery and gas bills. it was thoroughly unconvincing. to the extent people did care

about it, the more people cared about it was about the fact that it was a misuse of the justice system and that's what moved me on this case. i remember thinking who are the people who get more convinced to vote for donald trump after he is convicted and he was convicted and i am like maybe i'm one of those people and i have a lot of friends who thought that way. >> john: it seemed at every turn the more lawfare was leveraged against him the more popular he became. with this case and the legal analysis from jonathan turley and trey gowdy and andy mccarthy and so many others who said this seemed to be a travesty, miscarriage of justice with charges left and right bootstrapped together to get around statute of limitations and force it into a courtroom, that the american people looked at this, not all of the american people, but certainly the majority of them, looked at this and said this is unfair. and they are only doing this to try to stop this former

president from running for re-election. and the ground swell of support for him cleared went unnoticed bay lot of pollsters and left wing media but in the end i remember being there and seeing the sweep of all seven battleground states just really gave voice to what we had heard rumblings about that people were so ticked off by this they were willing to put him back in office because they liked what he had done the previous four years. >> it is not paranoia if they are actually out to get you. a lot of people saw it that way. there is a coyote and roadrunner thing going on here. they just keep trying in so many ways. >> dana: let me get you to this tape play back of the courtroom hearing. let's listen in right now.

this is from sounds like from start to finish the courtroom audio. sounds like people are getting settled there and andy, as you reflect on this is there anything you think the trump defense team could have done differently. having him testify. that was risky, merchan seemed to have this ready to go from the start. >> trump's defense team did the best they could. the law stuff was crashing into politics and take some positions they wouldn't have taken in a normal trial because it was consonant with trump's campaign messaging. the whole issue whether he reimbursed cohen or not. there was lots and lots of evidence that he reimbursed cohen. they initially took the position he didn't reimburse cohen and that ended up damaging them because the d.a. was able to show sure he did out of his own mouth. so i think ordinarily that

wouldn't happen. ordinarily lawyer in the case the only thing you are interested in is the law and evidence in the case. but here there is a whole political theme music going on all the time that you have to pay attention to. >> dana: did you ever do a prosecution where you recommended no jail time, probation or punishment? >> no, nor would i have wasted court time on this. i tried a case for three days and the judge gave somebody probation and i haven't forgiven him yet. so no, this was a colossal waste of resources, to andy's points were he not running for president he may have admitted nor the sake of argument that i did have a relationship with stormy daniels but he couldn't do that. his de stuck with the facts they were stuck with. i would just hope this, dana. there will be voices whispering in his ear to meet injustice with injustice. law information is wrong no

matter who does it and i hope he tells his department of justice they treated me unfairly but we won. go do justice. i hope that's what he tells them. >> john: let's get back to mary kathryn hamm. they reracked it to the beginning of the court proceedings. talking about this idea that juan merchan and alvin bragg seem to be the only ones interested in putting this scarlet letter on trump because the majority of the american people said no, we think it is unfair and not right and we'll show that by voting for him. >> dana: the sentencing gives away the game. >> letting him walk in a sense because it shows that this wasn't about justice. it was about interfering, they call it an election interference case. with the election. they didn't want him elected. they wanted to handicap him. >> dana: sound like we have

action in the courtroom. >> calendar number one, donald trump 71543 of 23. >> appearances please. >> good morning. the people josh steinglass, christopher con write, becky matthew, michael colangelo and kathryn ellis. >> good morning. >> president trump is co-located with my colleague mr. blanch. >> good morning. just for the record i want to make clear that mr. blain appearing virtually with mr. trump currently in florida, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct, your honor. >> mr. trump's other attorney is with us in the courtroom. pursuant to this court's

decision and order dated january 3, 2025, mr. trump was given the option of appearing virtually and subsequently counsel for mr. trump informed this court that he had elected to waive personal appearance and appear virtually. decision of sentence in this matter is permitted in new york and i direct your attention to the matter of people versus -- 72, three, 1133, 2021. before turning to the matter of sentencing, i want to confirm that the people and defense counsel have both received copies of the probation report. you have not? let the record reflect the people are being handed a copy now. take some time to look at it, okay? >> thank you.

>> dana: this was the portion of the court proceeding where they were reviewing dock nullities. looking over the probation document and lawyers were saying it was fine. one thing wrong for a date but they knew they wouldn't get the punishment and just went forward. >> mutual arbiter for the court between the prosecution and the defendant who tries to kind of marshall the different disputes and come up with a fair recommended sentence. >> given what we expect is happening today, nothing. >> thank you. >> dana: all right. just so everybody understands

we're listening to the entire courtroom proceedings. this is something we didn't get in any of the other previous times that this court gathered. there was no cameras or audio. if you remember we had our fine lawyers here assembled today and others who were in the courtroom. judge pirro, kerri urbahn and others sending us information. >> john: let me raise this and maybe i can throw this to trey. somebody brought this to my attention. according to the state election website, a new law passed in 2021 restores the right to vote for a person convicted of a felony upon release from incarceration regardless if they are on parole. since trump wasn't sentenced to anything, that would seem to suggest that he has completed his sentence and continue to have his voting rights. that's new york. although he voting we should say he is voting in florida these days. >> each state is different.

some states allow for the restoration of rights for felons, you can get your right to possess a firearm back. i don't think there is a federal expungement or applies to federal law. states -- each state has its own determineers for who can vote and who cannot. new york, you know, not shockingly a liberal state want as many felons as possible to vote. south dakota probably did not adopt that. >> dana: kerri, you are with us, is that correct? kerri, i'm sorry, i have some bad information. maybe they sound the same. >> john: they said kerri is not available. she is gone for a time. >> dana: she was our person inside the courtroom and how long this portion took. so that our viewers at home can understand what's happening. they are reviewing documents right now. this is typical in a courtroom,

jonathan turley? >> yes, it is. you know, they go through the probation report. i have been on the defense side of these cases. and everything else that follows is hardly what we normally see. usually when your client stands up ultimately to address the court, there are common references to being redeemed, to showing your past good deeds, your future plans. that's not what followed this standard step. you had a defendant here who knew he was not going to be sentenced to jail who used the opportunity to really confront the judge as to what occurred in this case. and to go after some of these -- >> dana: we'll take a moment to listen back in. >> state prison to a variety of non-incarceration sentences. in the court's january 3rd

decision you indicated an inclination to impose an unconditional discharge. under all the circumstances of this case, its unique posture and defendant's status as president-elect, the people recommend a sentence of an unconditional discharge. in finding the defendant guilty in this case, the jury necessarily found unanimously that the defendant falsified 34 separate entries in his business records with the intent to defraud which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote his own election by unlawful means. having presided over the trial, your honor is very familiar with the conduct. seriousness and overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict. i won't rehash that now. last week's decision on january 3rd, this court referred to the defendant's criminal

conduct in this case as constituting premeditated and continuous deception. the verdict was delivered by a jury that was carefully chosen using extensive questionnaire based on suggestions from both parties and after thorough questioning of the prospective jurors by both sides. the verdict in this case was unanimous and decisive and it must be respected. as this court has observed, quote, the sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it is a bedrock principle in our nation's jurisprudence. the defendant's conduct before, during and after this trial also merits consideration. instead of preserving, protecting and defending our constitutionally established system of criminal justice, the defendant, the once and future

president of the united states, has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy. far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law. and he has done this to serve his own ends and to encourage others to reject the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful. he has characterized these proceedings as corrupt, rigged, witch hunt, sham too many times to tabulate. the defendant's rhetoric has only ratcheted up since this court's rulings on his motions to dismiss. he has been unrelenting in his unsubstantiated attacks upon this court and its family, individual prosecutors and their families, the witnesses, the grand jury, the trial jury, and

the justice system as a whole. the defendant has not only been held in contempt by other jurists in other matters but this court alone found the defendant in contempt for ten violations with the order restricting speech. in his legal filings the defendant that's haase used dangerous rhetoric in leveling accusation of unconstitutional and unlawful conduct on the part of this court and the prosecution. as this court has noted, the defendant's conduct quote constituents a direct attack on the rule of law itself. moreover, the defendant has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors who have sought to hold him accountable in this and other matters and the courts who have endeavored to fairly and faithfully

adjudicate these matters. such threats are designed to have a chilling effect, to intimidate those who have the responsibility to enforce our laws in the hopes that they will ignore the defendant's transgressions because they fear that he is simply too powerful to be subjected to the same rule of law as the rest of us. in his 2024 end of year report the united states supreme court chief justice roberts warned of the dangers of such conduct quote public officials too regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges. for example, suggesting political bias in the judge's adverse rulings without credible basis for such allegations, end quote. chief justice roberts continued, quote, attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings are

inappropriate and should be vying orously opposed. public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary but they should be mindful that in team prance in their statements may prompt dangerous reactions by others. chief justice roberts also spoke of the dangers of disinformation which are, quote, magnified by social media which provides a ready channel to instantly spread rumor and false information. put simply, this defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way. in the probation report that we just received this morning the author had an interview with defendant noted the defendant sees himself as above the law

and won't accept responsibility for his actions. that is certainly consistent with everything else that we've seen. in a typical case, both the offense conduct and these other exacerbating factors would impact the appropriate sentence. but in this case we must be respectful of the office of the presidency and mindful of the fact the defendant will be inaugurated as president in ten days. any undischargeed portion of the sentence has the potential to interfere with the defendant's performance of the duties of his office. as a practical matter, the most senseible sentence prior to his inauguration is an unconditional discharge. the court has expressed an inclination to do exactly that because, in the court's words, quote, the most viable solution to insure finality and allow the defendant to pursue his appellate options is to proceed

to sentence. as you know, in new york a conditional discharge is authorized by penal law if the court having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character and condition of the defendant is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment and probation supervision is not appropriate. unconditional discharge is authorized if a conditional discharge is authorized and quote if the court is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant's release. because these crimes are felonies the court must set forth in the record the reasons for its action. the american public has the right to a presidency unencumbered by pending court proceedings orion going

sentence-related obligations. but imposing this sentence insures that finality. sentencing the defendant permits this court to enter judgment. cement the defendant's status as a convicted felon while he pursues whatever appeals he intends to pursue. it gives full effect and respect to the jury's verdict while preserving the defendant's ability to govern. the people therefore recommend that this court impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge, thank you. >> thank you. counsel. >> thank you, your honor, i very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy of what happened in this

courtroom during the trial, and about president trump's conduct fighting this case from before he was indicted to while he was indicted through the jury's verdict and even to this day. what the government just said pre-supposes something that we disagree with very much, which was that this was an appropriate case to be brought. it was not. this case without a doubt, knowing everything we know about the fact that multiple tatn, prosecutors looked at the facts of this case, including prosecutors within the district attorney's office in new york county, and made the decision not to bring charges. as the court knows, shortly after president trump announced his intention to run for

re-election, this case was started from what amounted to a third time, which brings us ultimately to where we are today. a lot of what the government just said pre-supposes that this case is legally appropriate and that the charges that were brought by the people were consistent with the laws of new york. again, we very much disagree with that and as everybody has been noted because it is true we certainly intend on appealing that. and it is not, by the way, just counsel and president trump that feels that way. there are many, many, many legal experts that share the same views that i just said, which is that legally this case should not have been brought, both based on the facts that were established at trial, and also on the legal basis for which they were brought. but it is also not just the legal experts, not just counsel

and not just president trump but the majority of the american people also agree that this case should not have been brought. the interesting thing about the fact that there was a trial for the first time in our history, a criminal trial during an election season is that the american voters got a chance to see and decide for themselves whether this is the kind of case that should have been brought. and they decided. and that's why in ten days president trump is going to assume the office of the president of the united states. and certainly we're here for the court to sentence president trump to an unconditional discharge and for that it is a very sad day. it is a sad day for president trump and his family and friends. but it is also in counsel's view, a sad day for this country. this was a case, without a doubt, that was brought by a

district attorney who promised that he would go after president trump if elected and felt like he had to go through with that promise. so that's sad. and i hope and i know that president trump shares this view, that this will never happen again in this country. and so we certainly understand where we are today. we very much intend on pursuing an appeal of this verdict, and what happened during this investigation. and we certainly believe that the only appropriate sentence, if one is to be imposed at all, which we very much believe it shouldn't be and the case should be dismissed, is a sentence of an unconditional discharge. thank you. >> thank you. would your client like to be heard? >> yes, thank you, your honor.

this has been a very terrible experience. i think it has been a tremendous setback for new york and the new york court system. this is a case that alvin bragg did not want to bring. he thought it was from what i read and from what i hear inappropriately handled before he got there. a gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney and that gentleman, from what i heard, was a criminal or almost criminal in what he did. it was very inappropriate. it was somebody involved with my political opponent, part of the records that we are talking about. they are saying i just noticed where he said i was falsifying business records. well, the falsification of business records, as they said, was calling a legal expense in the books where everybody could see them a legal expense.

legal fees or legal expense were put down as legal expense by accountants. they were put down by accounts, not me. i didn't call them construction, concrete work, i didn't call them electrical work. they were called a legal fee or legal expense a legal expense and for this i got indicted. it is incredible actually. now, if you look, my attorney alluded to it, the top legal scholars or legal pundits in this country, ones that are quoted all the time on television and making their views felt and highly respected people have said, virtually every one that i know of. i haven't seen any to the contrary, and these people aren't exactly friends of mine but they all said it is a case that should have never been brought. it is an injustice of justice.

very respected, jonathan turley, andy mccarthy, judge david riff kin, a wonderful man who just passed away, by the way, gregg jarrett, and cnn said that. a alan -- legal expenses are down as legal expenses and get indicted for business records. everybody should be so accurate. it has been a political witch hunt. it was done to damage my reputation so that i would lose the election. obviously that didn't work . and the people of our country got to see this firsthand. they watched the case in your courtroom. they got to see this firsthand and then they voted and i won and got the largest number of votes by far of any republican candidate in history. and won al