places, cnn said that paul ingrassia, alan dershowitz, they all said this is not a case that should be brought. it's not think about it. legal expenses are down as legal expenses. and i get indicted for business records. everybody should be so accurate. it's been a political witch hunt. it was done to damage my reputation so that i would lose the election. and obviously that didn't work. and the people of our country got to see this firsthand because 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, as you know, all seven swing states won conclusively, all seven swing states and won the popularity, the popular vote by millions and millions of votes. and they've been watching your trial, so they understood

it. i wasn't allowed to use the lawyer client privilege or the reliance on counsel. i had a lawyer that made this deal, and he admitted that. and he was also a totally discredited person. we weren't allowed to use the information from the southern district that totally discredited him. it wasn't allowed to be put in. and that was terrible. unbelievable. and this is a man who's got no standing. he's been disbarred on other matters, unrelated. and he was allowed to talk as though he were george washington. but he's not george washington. he shouldn't have been allowed. the southern district did a book of approximately 28 pages where they. i've never seen anything like it. they excoriated him. you wouldn't let it be put into evidence. so he was able to testify as a witness. and i think it's a disgrace to the system. i was under a gag order. i'm the first president in

history that was under a gag order, where i couldn't talk about aspects of the case that are very important. i guess i'm still under, so probably i won't do it now. i assume i'm still under a gag order, but the fact is that i'm totally innocent. i did nothing wrong. they talked about business records, and the business records were extremely accurately counted. i have nothing to do with them. any of that was done by an accountant or bookkeeper, who i think gave very credible testimony and was corroborated by everybody that was asked. and with all that's happening in our country today, with the city that's burning to the ground, one of our largest, most important cities burning to the ground with with wars that are uncontrollably going on with all of the problems of inflation and the attacks on countries and all of the horrible things that are going on. i got indicted over calling a legal expense. a

legal expense. it was called a legal expense. i just want to say, i think it's an embarrassment to new york, and new york has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment. i believe that this and other cases that was were brought as you know, the doj is doj is very much involved in this case. it's because that's the political opponent they're talking about. the doj is very involved. you have a gentleman sitting right there from the doj who was from the doj's office. he was also involved with the new york state attorney general's case. and he went from there to here. he went around and did what he had to do. he got them to move on me. but in the meantime, i won the election and a massive landslide. and the people of this country understand what's going on. this has been a weaponization of government. they call it lawfare. never happened to any extent like this, but never happened in our country before. and i just like to explain that i was treated very, very unfairly. and i thank you very much.

>> thank you, mr. trump. mr. trump, you appear before this court today to conclude this criminal proceeding by the imposition of sentence. although i have taken the unusual step of informing you in advance of my inclinations before imposing sentence, i believe it is important for you, as well as those observing these proceedings, to understand my reasoning for the sentence i am about to impose. the imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult and significant decisions that any criminal court judge is called upon to make. our legislature sets the parameters for an authorized sentence, but it is a judge that must decide what constitutes a just conclusion to a verdict of guilty. the court is vested with broad discretion in determining what sources or evidence you may consider to arrive at an

appropriate sentence. in doing so, the court must consider the facts of the case, along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. in my time on the bench, i've been called upon to grapple with this weighty responsibility for countless defendants who have been found guilty after trial for an assortment of offenses ranging from nonviolent class d felonies to the most heinous of crimes, including homicides, sex trafficking, and child sexual abuse, the task is always difficult and deserving of careful consideration, whether the sentence be an unconditional discharge or incarceration of 25 years to life. however, never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances. indeed, it can be viewed fairly

that this has been a truly extraordinary case. there was unprecedented media attention, public interest and heightened security involving various agencies. and yet the trial was a bit of a paradox, because once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique or extraordinary than the other 32 criminal trials that took place in this courthouse at the same exact time. jury selection was conducted, the same rules of evidence were followed. opening statements were made, witnesses called and cross-examined, evidence presented, summations delivered, the same burden of proof was applied, and a jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict, and it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure and guided by the law. of course, part of what

made it feel somewhat ordinary was the outstanding work, preparation and professionalism of the clerks, court officers, court reporters, security personnel and the entire staff of this building who did their jobs as they would with any other criminal trial. so while one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing, and that is because of the office you once occupied in which you will soon occupy again. to be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the office of the president of the united states that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office. the legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution afforded to the office of the president, have

been laid out by our founders, the constitution, and most recently interpreted by the united states supreme court in the matter of trump versus the united states, which was decided on july 1st, 2024. as with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision. some of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my sandoval ruling at the start of this trial, and by my recent written decisions on december 16th and january 3rd. thus, they need not be repeated at this time. however, the considerable, indeed extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the chief executive is a factor that overrides all

others. to be clear, the protections afforded the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. they do not reduce the seriousness and seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way. the protections are, however, a legal mandate which, pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow. however, despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict. it is clear from legal precedent which until july 1st was scarce, that donald trump, the ordinary citizen, donald trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections. i'm referring to

protections that extend well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. no ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. it is the office of the president that bestows those far reaching protections to the office holder. and it was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include, among other things, the supremacy clause and presidential immunity. it is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence. after careful analysis in obedience to governing mandates and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that

permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge, which the new york state legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree. therefore, at this time i impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts. sir, i wish you godspeed as you assume your second term in office. thank you. >> and with that, it concluded. welcome back. i'm jose diaz-balart, alongside my friend and colleague ana cabrera, and we just heard audio for the very first time from inside the courtroom where president elect trump was sentenced today in his criminal hush money case. juan merchan, the judge here sentencing the president elect to an unconditional discharge. >> and that sentence does not carry any jail time, not even a

fine. but it will cement trump's status now as the first convicted felon turned president when he is inaugurated in just ten days. trump was convicted way back in may of falsifying business records related to hush money payments his then lawyer, michael cohen, had made to adult film actress stormy daniels just days before the 2016 election. >> and just moments ago on social media, trump called today's event, quote, a despicable charade. he added, quote, now that it is over, we will appeal this hoax, which has no merit, and restore the trust of americans in our once great system of justice. >> joining us now, chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official. catherine christian, former assistant district attorney at the manhattan da's office, msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin and charles coleman, civil rights attorney and former brooklyn, new york prosecutor. also with us today, misty morris, a defense attorney. great to have all of you here with us. and let's get right to

what happened in that courtroom, lisa, i mean, inside. >> that's exactly right. >> i was and i'm really grateful that judge mashon allowed people to hear his voice, in large part because i heard that voice every day for seven weeks. and i'm glad that the american public can now hear what we heard. judge merchan was today, as he was during the trial, calm and measured, never nasty, always wishing criminal defendant trump well, including at the very end here where he said, sir, i wish you godspeed as you assume your second term of office. but the thing that i found most remarkable, anna, was that while merchan was not changed, trump and blanche were slightly different than they've been lately in their papers, and certainly than they were during the trial. how so? they were forceful in their response to the imposition of the sentence to the very existence of this case. and while they attacked alvin bragg by name, not by name, another participant in the prosecution team who came from the department of justice, you heard trump sort of pointing at him, this man here, right. the

one person they didn't attack is juan merchan, because they understand now that chief justice roberts is watching, judge merchan quoted chief justice roberts back to them in his opinion last week, saying, look, the chief and i are in agreement. the kind of rhetoric that you and your lawyers used throughout this trial, it is a danger to the rule of law being upheld in this country. it is a danger to our democracy. and as you increasingly appealed or pursued your legal rights, even when it was clear that you had no leg to stand on, your rhetoric got sharper and sharper in a way that i find objectionable. and therefore i'm going to put it in this long footnote in that opinion, indicating as much. and then you see, today, the da's office, josh steinglass, reminding judge merchan again of those dangers that came into chief justice roberts report. i thought that trump, particularly given the supreme court's ruling last night, five four with roberts with the majority, is a little bit chastened by that.

>> yeah. and catherine, at the time that the president was speaking, he was still under the gag order, a gag order that is no longer existent after the case is concluded. but it seemed like it was a quick, fast process. it's pro forma in so many ways in such an unusual case. >> well, remember, in this case, we knew what the sentence was going to be. so this wasn't a case of the prosecutors asking for a specific sentence and the defense saying, no, that's too much time. everyone knew going in it was going to be an unconditional discharge. also, in new york state, at least in that courthouse, sentencing proceedings really don't last longer than 30 minutes, depending on the facts of the case. it's it moves pretty slow. i agree this was an incoming president of the united states who thought it might be a little, maybe an hour, but really, everyone knew the sentence. so there was. and judge marchand needed to say in his decision last week, and he even mentioned that he wrote about what he was going to say and doesn't need to do that again. >> chuck, we heard judge merchan say the only lawful sentence

without encroaching on the highest office of the land is unconditional discharge. what do you make of that? >> well, i think he's right, ana, in the following sense. most sentences, almost every other sentence i've ever seen, certainly in my time as a federal prosecutor, carries some penalty. right? so if not incarceration, a fine or restitution or supervised release or probation, all of those things potentially could extend into mr. trump's presidency. and so what judge merchan was trying to do and did it effectively, and we can talk about the strategy, is make it clear that there would be no penalty. there would be an entry of judgment today and the trial is over. there's no tail on this case in terms of an encroachment on the duties of the office of president. and that resonated with the supreme court. if you look at what they did last night, that was important. they cited two factors in permitting this sentence to go forward. one

of them was that mr. trump would be able to appeal, of course, as any defendant can, once entering a judgment was made, because it was it had to get through sentencing for the case to be complete and the conviction to be like stamped essentially. right. exactly. it had to be stamped. the second reason the supreme court offered was right to your question, ana, that there was no additional burden, no lingering burden on mr. trump, that what was happening today, what happened today was discrete and it's over. and so the presidency is not burdened. and that obviously resonated not just with the so-called liberal justices, but also with chief justice roberts and with justice amy coney barrett. that was important to them. and because there were five votes to let the sentencing proceed today, the sentencing proceeded today. >> charles, just your thoughts on unconditional, unconditional discharge being used in felony cases. and then also, you know,

at times, trump often talked about the fact that this was a political witch hunt, that there's a political aspect to all of this. he actually mentioned it in his remarks right before he was sentenced. what do you make of all this? >> i'm a former prosecutor. chuck's a former prosecutor. we catherine is a former prosecutor. lisa has been around. the law has been around the law. but as three for three out of four, former prosecutors can tell you, you go with the facts, take you, and you prosecute on the basis of the law. alvin bragg had a job to do. jack smith has had a job to do. that is a different conversation because of how the federal government goes about and their rules with respect to prosecuting, sitting, sitting presidents. but alvin bragg did what he was supposed to do, and he got a conviction for millions of americans. jose, the idea of being saddled with a felony conviction can be a huge and tremendous obstacle, not only

because of the penalties that are imposed, but just the label itself. it is very jarring to see and to feel and to watch someone when we've been saying literally for years, decades, even that no man is above the law in the united states of america, because that's how our system works. to watch someone essentially walk out of court a free man with the same label that will prohibit some other people from finding housing, from getting jobs, traveling, being able to travel and live a from being able to vote, even though and he will have his right to vote taken away in florida from being able to live a normal life. and so for me, i am thinking very much so, number one, about the historic nature of today and how significant it is. and then also, number two, this does unquestionably reinforce the notion of there being a two tiered justice system in the united states. >> misty marris is our defense attorney of the group. i want to get her in here because you point out the folks at this

table right now have prosecutorial experience. misty, do you see what happened today through a different lens? what do you what are your thoughts? >> well, ana, here in this particular case, there's a question about what was possible under the law. what was the sentence that could have been handed down with this particular class e felony? but that's versus what is practicable. and from the from the from the perspective of what is actually practicable. this was truly the only way to get this case to finality, for there to be a sentence imposed and for the will of the jury who did convict, who found donald trump guilty, to actually have him move forward through the criminal justice system in the way that any other citizen would? so is it unusual to have a an unconditional discharge for any felony conviction in new york? absolutely. incredibly unusual. but in this particular case, it was truly the only option to actually complete this case, have it stamped, have it

done, and have that judgment of conviction be finalized. >> and so, chuck, now and, you know, blanch said it the first words out of the gate, we're going to appeal this, and we're going to appeal every single word of this. how do you see an appeal going and what are the steps going forward? >> yeah, catherine and i were talking about this before we came on the set. i think there are some difficult issues for the government. in an appeal. remember, judge merchan tried this case and i agree with lisa. tried it well and professionally before the immunity decision came down from the supreme court. so the ground shifted under the feet of the prosecutors and the judge and the defense attorneys after the trial. and one of the things we learned from the supreme court is that the government ought to be staying away from executive branch witnesses, at least arguably. so, jose, the government, however, backing up a bit, called two white house employees, two executive branch officials, madeleine westerhout and hope hicks, as witnesses in

the criminal trial. i'm not sure they would have done that had they known about the immunity decision, which was to come. so did the government accidentally. right. initially make a mistake, that is, you know, that might, on appeal, lead to a reversal of the conviction. i think that's a real possibility. i don't think it's definitive. i don't know that that's what will happen. but if your question is, does mr. trump have something that he can credibly argue on appeal to seek reversal? the answer is yes. not because judge merchan made any mistakes. in fact, the prosecutors, as far as i can tell, didn't make any significant mistakes. but the land shifted under their feet with the immunity decision. >> but but that was also why judge merchan ultimately delayed sentencing initially was because of the immunity decision and an opportunity to step back, take a look at that piece of this case and what had been presented to

the jury. and lisa, what did judge merchan decide as he was looking at the evidence and whether madeleine westerhout hope hicks made a difference in the verdict? >> well, and there were some other official acts evidence as well. for example, donald trump tweeted repeatedly from his time in the white house about michael cohen. that was evidence that the prosecution used at trial and evidence that the supreme court said has a presumption of immunity attached to it. because most presidential communications can be characterized as within the scope of your duties. but that having been said, merchan considered those arguments, as you noted in a motion to vacate the jury's verdict, and what he said was there was enough left over. even if you were to scrape all of that off the table. the jury had so much evidence to show that donald trump participated in this falsification of business records with an intent to commit or conceal another felony, that being of a conspiracy, essentially to promote his own election, that it wouldn't have

mattered if hope hicks and madeleine westerhout hadn't testified that neither their testimony nor these tweets, nor a few other pieces of evidence were so crucial that the jury couldn't have reached its verdict without it. and i have to say, having sat through the trial every day, i actually agree with that decision. david pecker, who was the former editor in chief of the national enquirer, the single most important witness at the trial and in terms of physical evidence, what was the most important? the phone records, the text exchange, and most importantly, those checks that donald trump himself signed from the white house, which even his counsel never said were evidence of his official act. >> other people and those other tweets were included and at times spoken about as if they were central to the case and a federal form that he felt that his financial disclosure form. >> that's right. i agree with lisa. under new york law, that would be considered this harmless error, overwhelming evidence of guilt, letting you know hope hicks and madeleine west and the other evidence was harmless error. that's new york law. i'm not so sure. well, we

know that the four justices yesterday who would have stopped the sentencing will reverse. you can just assume that will roberts and or barrett agree with them and then therefore the conviction to reverse. and quite frankly, we hear about the new york appellate courts being, you know, liberal. they may also say, well, under new york law, it's harmless error, but under this not very well written decision, it's unclear. so donald trump does have a good shot at getting his conviction reversed. but it's not going to happen in a week. it's going to take some time. how long would that something its first he has to go through the appellate division, first department, which could take up to a year or less. it depends how quick you get your briefs and then if they lose or if the prosecution lose, then you can appeal to the new york state court of appeals, which is the highest court. then after you do that, then you go over to the federal court. so that's not going to happen in 2025. >> and guys, we will discuss more about the what's next as we continue throughout this hour. we are going to squeeze in just

a very short break. lisa rubin mr. myers, thank you both. everybody else, please stay with us. >> and we're going to be asking a former new york city judge who was just inside the court about what he saw as judge merchan announces trump's sentence. you're watching special coverage after last month's massive solar flare you're watching special coverage right here on added a 25th hour to the day, businesses are wondering "what should we do with it?" bacon and eggs 25/7. you're darn right. solar stocks are up 20% with the additional hour in the day. [ clocks ticking ] i'm ruined. with the extra hour i'm thinking companywide power nap. let's put it to a vote. [ all snoring ] this is going to wreak havoc on overtime approvals. anything can change the world of work. from hr to payroll, adp designs forward-thinking solutions to take on the next anything. go-friends, gather! keke! chris! jason! boop! friends. let's go, let's go, friends! hold onto your dice. woohoo!! -nice frosting, pratt. -thank you!

how we doin', keke? tastes like money to me. i can't go back to jail! wait, did you rob my bank? -hehe. -are we winning!? -ha ha ha! -oh boy! yeah! money, power, friendship. let's go! than ever recipes from hellofresh. >> we're talking barely lift a finger. easy and done in a flash. fast. now get all the flavor with way less work all week long. hellofresh homemade. made easy. >> have you seen the papers? apparently it's already decided this year. >> one choice leaves no doubt conclave is director edward berger's stunning cinematic achievement refines in a stellar

ensemble cast. burn up the screen now, afi has named conclave one of the best pictures of the year, and conclave is nominated for 11 critics choice awards, including best picture of the year. >> wasn't the outcome, i expect? >> wasn't the outcome, i expect? >> no, but it's wonderful all ♪♪ with fastsigns, create factory grade visual solutions to perfect your process. ♪♪ fastsigns. make your statement™. what the biggest companies deliver is an exceptional customer experience. what makes it possible is unmatched connectivity and 5g solutions from t-mobile for business. t-mobile connects 100,000 delta airlines employees, powers tractor supply's stores nationwide with reliable 5g business internet, and partners with pga of america on game changing innovation. this is how business goes further with t-mobile for business.

(vo) explore the world the viking way this is how business goes further from the quiet comfort of elegant small ships with no children and no casinos. we actually have reinvented ocean voyages, designing all-inclusive experiences for the thinking person. viking - voted world's best by both travel + leisure and condé nast traveler. learn more at viking.com. on medicare. i check goodrx because i can beat my co-pay. who wouldn't like that? >> even if you have insurance

dave's been very excited about saving big with the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. five years? -five years. and he's not alone. -high five. it's five years of reliable gig speed internet. five years of advanced securit. five years of a great rate that won't change. it's back. but only for a limited time. high five. five years? -nope. comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee. powering five years of savings. powering possibilities. comcast business. president elect donald trump was sentenced in new york in his hush money case. judge juan

merchan gave him an unconditional discharge, which means he he's going to face no punishment, but is now officially a convicted felon. >> this is historic. trump will become the only convicted felon to be sworn into the oval office when he attends his inauguration in just ten days. joining us now is former new york city judge george grasso. he's also a 30 year veteran of the nypd. suzanne craig. pulitzer prize winning journalist with the new york times who has spent years covering donald trump, his businesses, his brand was also in the courtroom today. and back with us now, our legal panel, chuck rosenberg, catherine christian and charles coleman. good to see all of you. so, judge grasso, let me start with you. your initial takeaways, having been in the court listening to today's final proceedings in this case. >> well, i was anyone who was in the courtroom was a personal witness to history. >> i think that judge michonne basically gave the country a masterclass on on what a judge

being faced with such an unprecedented situation as judge michonne was faced with should do both to balance the rule of law, respect the jury, respect the rights of an individual defendant. and probably most important, given the unique circumstances in this case, respect the united states of america and everyone who voted in the past election. so what he did is he imposed a sentence that, as was said at the outset of this particular take, that that now locks in the jury, backs the jury. donald trump is now officially a convicted felon convicted of 34 felony counts. and it's very important for the rule of law. and i said, through every day of the trial, there was abundant evidence for that to stand. but on the other hand, we have the defendant in this case, with all of this information out there available

for the public to see that won the election for be our next president, become president again. he won the election fair and square. and that was pointed out as well by the judge and acknowledged by the district attorney. so now, on january 20th, the judge has to be very careful that he doesn't take any action that could in any way encumber donald trump's ability to be president again, this time, pre number 47. and he was very clear and precise in saying his decision with an unconditional discharge wasn't because donald trump's actions as an individual was mitigated, but he was acknowledging the rights of the united states of america to all of the citizens in this country, including you, including me, to have a president that is unencumbered by an ongoing criminal process. so he did the right thing for the country. he did the right thing for the defendant, and he did the right thing for the rule of law and backed and respected

the jury. those are my views. >> and, sue, i know that you were in the courtroom as well. what do you see as judge chang's statements today, and how focused was he on maybe giving a lesson in certain ways? >> i think he really was, i have to say, when i kind of left and was sort of digesting what had happened, i think that the air in the courtroom and the mood was very much one of frustration on, on every side. it started out with the lawyer from from the manhattan da's office, josh steinglass, got up and he agreed that the unconditional discharge made sense, but then kind of went into his closing arguments about everything that had happened in the trial and the wrongs that that had led to the to the guilty verdict and the frustration there and then donald trump and his lawyers got up, and donald trump gave a very weaving speech about how unjust it was and how, i don't know. he talked again about how he won the popular vote. it was sort of all over the place. but then returning to the judge, i think

he really had thought out what he wanted to say. and he had at that point, he had all of us there. he had an audience for it. and he actually started out with something that i thought really, really resonated with me, which he talked about how extraordinary this situation was. but then he talked about how when the trial started and how the when the process started, how it became so ordinary, and how once the opening arguments started, even in the jury selection, it was like anybody else going through a trial. and they had, you know, just the process worked and the verdict happened. and then i think he was left with a really awful situation that he was struggled with. he said he thought a lot about it. he says every time he has to come up and he has to decide what the punishment is going to be, whether it's a minor offense or a sex trafficker or somebody who's committed murder. he's had them all through his courtroom. it's very serious. but he felt

in this situation he said, donald trump, the ordinary citizen, donald trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to the protections of the presidency. but he was very clear in his language about distinguishing donald trump, the man, from the office of the president that donald trump will be assuming in just over a week. >> i did think that judge chang was very untheatrical, and that stood out just sort of how sort of matter of fact, straight by the book, just going to handle this case like it would be for other clients, or i should say defendants in this case. i wanted to get your reaction, judge grasso, to what we heard from trump, not only in the courtroom, but this sort of victory lap that he's taking now after the sentencing, really honing in on the unconditional discharge, writing in that statement, which is all we have after the court so far, i was given an unconditional discharge. that result alone

proves that as a legal, as all legal scholars and experts have said, he claims there is no case. there was never a case in this whole scam. fully deserves to be dismissed. >> total bs, but bs total bs that has. susan could tell you she's she's done the encyclopedia in her book lucky loser where donald trump has been adept. i mean, he's 78 years old, but going back to when he was in his 20s, he can take one disastrous situation after another, and he tries to spin it into a victory. and he just pounded the table harder. the more he's in the corner. that's exactly what he's doing now. but speaking as a as a retired judge for almost 13 years and an attorney for over 40 years, from a legal point of view, everything that he said is bs. what the judge did here is he locked in donald trump as a convicted felon unless and until

an appellate court with appropriate jurisdiction, either in new york state or the united states supreme court, unless they vacate this. donald trump is a convicted felon. that sentence of unconditional discharge, locked down in judge mershon, knew exactly what he was doing, and he did it. and donald trump, by the way, knew exactly what he was saying. and he said it. and by the way, speaking legally, this stuff, it's ridiculous. but he clearly knows what he's doing because he's going to become our 47th president. you know, notwithstanding, you know, one trial, you know, one catastrophe after another. but this is the way trump handles things. so it was totally to be expected. >> charles, just thinking of the times that we have all been on this table with different indictments being published and some speaking indictments and some not so speaking indictments of all of these. when you look back at this, what do you take away? >> i'm struck in this moment,

thinking about this as an epilog to a very, very long journey with respect to this historic process of donald trump being indicted at the state level, being found liable in civil trials, being convicted of a felony, having multiple federal indictments levied against him. and on today, as we sit here, it feels like he got out of it. he got out of everything. yes. he has been found liable with respect to his civil responsibilities and his cases with e jean carroll. yes. he was convicted of a felony today. but what has it really cost him? he is going back to an office of enormous power. a man who already enjoys tremendous privilege. and so i question not necessarily what does it say about the judiciary, because what happened was a function not of the judiciary, but our regard for it with respect to how it operates and the levers of power and how they are pulled. but what does it say about us that

for many voters, the majority of voters in this country, it didn't matter? and so when you think about this in the historical context and looking forward, having all of these things, there is no one in america who could face the legal struggles that he has faced, get convicted, take losses, and then ascend to the highest office of the land. and i wonder, what does that say about our regard for the rule of law that we talk about so much being a system that we claim holds no person above the law. so you have civil liability, you have a criminal conviction yet. and still, for a majority of american voters, it did not matter. that's not to make it political, but it is to question where in our psyche, where in our conscience do we regard our legal and justice system? >> your thoughts on that, chuck? >> well, look, that's a really hard question, and i don't have all day to answer it, but i'm going to try to nibble at the edges of it a bit. look, i think

charles is right. we often talk. all of us have done it about nobody being above the law and the sanctity of the rule of law, understanding that the rule of law is a construct, right? unlike the law of gravity that exists all the time and everywhere, the rule of law is a construct, and it's incumbent on all of us to try and protect it. but, you know, is it also true that nobody is above the law? rhetorically, sure. but i think, as we've learned when you're the president of the united states, if you're not above the law, you're certainly sort of astride it. right? there are things that don't pertain to you. there are powers that you have incumbent with the office. a president has the ability to pardon other people. charles. and i can't do that. a president has executive privilege. charles and i don't have that. and now a president has reasonably broad immunity from the supreme court for official acts. something that charles and i don't have. so while it's true in the main that nobody is above the law, it's also true in the specifics that

a president is beside it. and that's what we are seeing. i don't think it's i don't and, you know, we can talk at length about the supreme court decision on immunity and other things that have happened along the way. but presidents have always had privileges that other people are not entitled to. and so it's a complicated question. it is indeed. >> and so i'm just wondering, you know, clearly the fact that it's donald trump that gives him the opportunity to share in some of these privileges and some of these. but it's almost as though he is very unique in so many ways, including how he has dealt with the system, the justice system, not just in the last. >> you know, we tend to focus this in the last ten years since he came on the political scene, but he has had a lifetime of this sort of behavior where he has managed to dodge and weave the law. there have been consequences along the way. they're usually just so, so

unnoticeable that we don't talk about them, because for the most part, this is very much a life that has been led, evading the law and doing things that he has gotten away with. i actually think, and, you know, a lot of people are going to feel this was very unfair, what happened today. but i think it was exactly in line with how he's lived his life. >> how do you think it impacts his business, his brand, which we know matters so much to donald trump, the person not necessarily take take being president out of it. >> i think there was some frustration that this was happening today. you heard it in his voice when he was talking. but i think when we step back, i don't think it has really any i think this is this is 100% a built in event. >> george grasso, sue craig, chuck rosenberg, catherine christian and charles coleman, thank you all so very much. >> and still ahead, trump's wasting no time now fundraising off what he is calling his rigged sentencing. the political impact next. >> you're watching special coverage of the historic type 2 diabetes? coverage of the historic sentencing of donald trump r discover the ozempic® tri-zone.

i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. and adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for type 1 diabetes or children. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take if you or your family had mtc, men 2, or if allergic to it. stop taking and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or any of these allergic reactions. tell your provider if you plan to have surgery or a procedure, are breastfeeding, pregnant, or plan to be. serious side effects may include inflammation of pancreas, gallbladder problems, or changes in vision. call your prescriber if you have any of these symptoms. taking with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, constipation.

some side effects lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. prepping, no cooking. just heat prepping, no cooking. just heat up and dig in t go-friends, gather! keke! chris! jason! boop! friends. let's go, let's go, friends! money, power, friendship. let's go! ♪♪ -honey... -but the gains are pumping! dad, is mommy a "finance bro?" she switched careers to make money for your weddings. oooh the asian market is blowing up! hey who wants shots, huh?! -shots?? -of milk. the right money moves aren't as aggressive as you think. when we started feeding bogie the farmer's dog, he lost so much weight. pre-portioned packs makes it really easy to keep him lean and healthy.

in the morning, he flies up the stairs and hops up on my bed. in the past, he would not have been able to do any of those things. mess, and barely lift a finger. easy. hellofresh homemade made easy and tasty too. wow. >> welcome back to our special coverage of the sentencing of president elect donald trump. >> he is now officially a convicted felon after receiving just last hour and unconditional discharge. that means he will receive no real penalty for falsifying business records. but again, that conviction is now part of his record. joining us now, andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the mueller probe. he's also an msnbc legal analyst alongside him. susan del percio, republican strategist,

msnbc political analyst and nbc news correspondent garrett hake. >> so, garrett, let's start with you. what are donald trump's next steps now that the sentencing is over? >> well, it's an interesting question, jose, because donald trump has used these proceedings against him, particularly here in new york, but also in atlanta, to his immense political benefit. he's used them to fundraise. he's used them to rally republicans around him in times where he was running for office. and he continues to make some of that effort. now, we've already seen one fundraising appeal go out from him earlier today, and we've seen him file a lengthy post on truth social with all the usual attacks that he has made against the judge in this case and against the case itself. now, over the next couple of days down in florida, he's expected to meet with different groups of house republicans. they are in ostensibly going there to talk about his legislative agenda and how to get different elements of these upcoming bills passed once he's inaugurated. but knowing donald trump and the way that this case and this sentencing is

on his mind, i expect he will also be talking to them a fairly good amount about what has happened here in new york today. and with house republicans. we already saw this over the last two years, an eagerness to find ways to investigate donald trump's perceived enemies. i would not at all be surprised if this new republican congress feels incumbent upon themselves to keep this case alive, by either finding some way to investigate alvin bragg or the case here in new york itself. if they don't kind of take up the torch for donald trump, who will have other things on his plate, you know, judiciary committee, that new weaponization committee that was created in the last congress, all of whom might be looking for ways to go after the right enemies, if you will. and with this on donald trump's mind, i could very easily see these kind of concepts merging, especially over the next few days with so many of these republican house members visiting mar-a-lago. >> susan, what do you make of what we heard from trump in court today before the judge handed down his sentence and the

fact that he's already fundraising off of this? >> well, it's not surprising he's fundraising off of this. he's done that consistently evet that even though this was a legal process for donald trump, all legal processes are political, and i think he used his time in front of the judge not to speak to the judge, but to speak to his audience, his people. he wants this to go down as another speech. every time he has a chance to take his people and get them behind him, he grabs at it because he knows constant momentum with those folks, keeps his poll numbers up, and brings in the money to that point. >> can i just ask a quick follow up? i mean, he has been able, throughout the course of the past year since the indictments. the first one, there's now four then, you know, as we played it out along the way, he was able to use his legal woes to his political advantage. and so here

we are. this is the only case that made it to trial. it's complete. the sentencing has taken place ten days before he is sworn back into office. do you see, in some maybe counterintuitive way, this giving him a boost as he heads into the white house politically? >> well, you know, in 2023, he was indicted and he beat all of his competitors in a primary in 2024, he was found guilty of 34 connections, i'm sorry, felonies and was convicted on them and won the general election. donald trump will keep using especially i think, this case. one, as garrett said, as far as a cudgel for congress to go into and investigate and get headlines off of that, but he will use it to make himself a martyr. you see, they convicted me, but it really wasn't fair because i got no time. i could just see him going down that route. so yes, he will also use it every time he's in a jam and wants to

change a conversation because he likes that shiny arm. >> andrew, just wondering what your thoughts are today. >> well, i think the big picture is what it says about america and sort of our standing in the world. i mean, leaving aside this specific sentence, leaving all of this sort of the sort of particularities of what happened today, the big picture is that we have somebody who is coming into office who is a convicted felon, where a jury has found him guilty of 34 felonies. he has now been sentenced. that has never happened in american history for our standing in the world. it is where we think of ourselves as this, you know, shining beacon and the rule of law being so paramount to what it means to be an american and what we hold ourselves out to be. it, i think, is just dramatically changes that image of ourselves. >> how do you rebut the folks that say this was a political, a

politicization of the justice system to exactly do that, to injure or hurt an opponent? >> so i think there are a number of responses. i mean, one, in spite of what donald trump said today at the sentencing, this case was brought by a state official. it was not brought by the department of justice. it was not brought by biden or harris. it was this was just brought by a state prosecutor. it was something that was investigated for a long time. in terms of the jury. the jury is not political. the jury is just they just assess the facts based on the law as it was directed to them by the judge. and so there's no reason to denigrate the findings of 12 average american citizens than that. and for us to have that sort of, you know, view that somehow we know better. and plus we all sort of went through the trial and saw the evidence, and there was certainly a substantial basis

for them doing that. i do think there's a second question there of like, would the case have been brought had his name not been donald trump? that's not to say it's politicized. that's just to say, was he treated the same as whether he was donald trump or donald smith? i think that's a fair question, and one that alvin bragg has actually answered in terms of the history of looking at what they have prosecuted in the past and why they decided to bring this case. but i don't think there's a particularly good argument to say that this is kind of a show trial that we've seen in other countries. this is one where there's substantial reason to have brought this. and after all, these were a case that was largely proved through witnesses who were allies of former president trump. they were republicans who testified. they were people who used to work with him, friends of his who testified. and there was substantial evidence of the crimes here. >> and i'm sorry, i just want to say something that andrew brought up as far as looking at

the president of the united states. we're not like every other country, or at least we weren't. and i think having a convicted felon being sworn in in ten days as president does send a message politically into the international community. and i think that's just something we have to keep in the message as far as who we are as a country, not making donald trump specific, but we're wondering about our relationships with nato, for example, and with other countries. we're sending you know, the next president is going to be someone who is of we knew of low moral character, but is a convicted felon and out there. and i think it does change the way we are perceived as a nation going forward, not just on the 20th, but a year from now, five years from now. america may not be that shining, you know, country on a hilltop that it once was perceived internationally. >> i will always on the side of my support and faith in the american process, democracy and the pillars of this country,

which is based on the men, women and children who make up this country and who are really the most unique, extraordinary people in our planet. >> guys got to leave it there for now. andrew weissman, susan del percio, garrett hake, thank you all. up next, we are following another breaking story today. just moments ago, officials in the los angeles area announced a curfew will remain in effect for at least another night as even more new wildfires ignite in the area we're live in one of the most devastated areas. >> stay with us. >> machine learning is advancing, but businesses wonder if some machines can keep up. >> let's welcome our new coworker, jeff. >> copier has a great idea. >> i wonder if it's the same idea as yesterday. >> it's a performance issue. >> really. >> i know people push your buttons, but you still have to deliver. >> anything can change the world

>> anything can change the world of work. adp ass always dry scoop before you run. listen to me, the hot dog diet got me shredded. it's time we listen to science. one a day is formulated with key nutrients to support whole body health. one a day. science that matters. prilosec knows, for a fire... one fire extinguisher beats 10 buckets of water, and for zero heartburn 1 prilosec a day... beats taking up to 10 antacids a day. it's that simple, for 24 hour heartburn relief... one beats ten. prilosec otc. (woman) i've got this dream... and you're all in it! one beats ten. (banker 1) let's hear it! (vo) with wells fargo premier a team can help you plan for your dream. (woman) i have this vacation home... (banker 2) so, like a getaway? (woman) yeah, but... it's also an eco-friendly artist retreat. (banker 3) so, you're expanding your business... (woman) ...and our family! can you help me plan for that? (banker 1) yeah! let's get started. (vo) ready to meet the dream team? you can with wells fargo.

to ten. at this hour, five active blazes are burning across los angeles, with another erupting overnight. triggering new evacuation orders. >> nearly 180,000 people have been forced to flee, and more than 9000 homes and buildings have been destroyed. nbc's steve patterson joins us now from pacific palisades, california.

steve, what are we hearing from officials there? i know they just had a news conference. what did you learned? >> they did. yeah. >> and one of the one of the most heartening things to hear is that the wind event that we've been in, the santa ana winds, the red flag winds set to expire later on this afternoon. that is a great sign for firefighters that are doing all they can to knock out so-called hotspots, which create pockets of embers which could further carry this fire to a new location, to a new front, or extend the fire that we're already in. you can see, though, the devastation on the ground in an area like this, there's not much left to burn. this is a neighborhood where almost literally everything is gone. every home that we've seen, you should be able to see. you shouldn't be able to see clear back here, because there should be lots of homes and rows of homes all gone. cars melted down to the studs. the aluminum hubcaps just melted into the ground. all gone. you know, all that's left are chimneys. you know that are brick power lines

strewn across the road. here you can see that the level of devastation is absolutely unbelievable, and we can't even see all of it because there's so much there's so much built up, so much devastation that it's hard to even comprehend. but again, that critical window that we're now in is crucial for the overall firefighting effort. and make no mistake, despite all of this, and despite how much has burned, we're still in a primary firefighting operation. thankfully, though, because of the winds have died down. we've seen much stronger aerial attack tankers and helicopters dropping water dropping retardant on these fires, which means there now is some containment, 8% on the palisades fire, 3% on the eaton fire. that is crucial to be able to sort of make egress, to really knock down these flames. and so the investigation phase continues, can continue so investigators can get into scenes like this. and they have been able to because the death count has risen, as you said, now ten dead. obviously officials say that that may rise as well as this goes on. but

despite all this, we just had that news conference you mentioned talking about security. there is now a curfew that was implemented last night. it will continue tonight, 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. that just expired. but we now we've seen, you know, multiple national guard units along with lapd, l.a. county. they're all here. they're trying to make these scenes safe because we've heard of more looting and more burglaries. that has to stop, guys. >> back to you. a long road to recovery. and again, the firefight continues this hour. steve patterson, thank you for your just tireless reporting out there. we appreciate you and we appreciate you at home. that's going to wrap up this hour of special coverage. >> i'm ana cabrera i'm jose diaz-balart. thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. >> and right now on andrea mitchell reports. we're following three breaking stories today. history made in manhattan just ten days before his return to the oval office, donald trump becomes the first former president to be sentenced on a felony convi