sentence and non-prison sentences virtually the same. and in fact, a prison sentence, maybe he gets a sentence, but they expect, they hoped that it would be stayed immediately and that it would not go into effect. and so this is all i guess short-term political strategy i still think that we should just be aware that there is also a very good possibility that he does not get a prison sentence let's hear right. just based on the facts of this particular case but the fact that so many trump allies are suggesting to me that they see present in his feature, they think that that is going to be just a shot of adrenaline into the republican base. and that's all that is on their minds at this point. look verdict has calmed down. they're going to take what they've got and run with it and they think that this is going to be the motivating factor we heard one republican hugh hewitt a commentator, say, this is almost like the dobbs decision for democrats. i don't know if that is true interested. this is the kind of rhetoric that we're hearing out. they're from republican polo. >> we expect trump to begin speaking any moment. >> yeah, it could go for an hour, as kristen said, whether it takes questions or not, it is unknown how focus is his legal team now and on moments like this, right? this isn't just a minute or two outside the courtroom. this is going to be an hour to potentially do things like violate the gag order yes. >> yes. yes. that is exactly what his legal team is going to be thinking about because the gag order is still in place. there were questions about well, why didn't todd blanche moved to have it lifted right after the verdict i spoke with the team this morning and i'm told that they believe they still have an active appeal on wednesday, they filed a request for expedited review of the gag order with the court of appeals. so they believe that is still in progress. as we know, they've been very aggressive about litigating this gag order, but all of his gag order violations can be used in the eventual sentencing calculus. so i am sure that they are concerned about that the lawyers again, but really it appears that the political concerns are taking are taking center stage here. all right. all staying with us here is we are awaiting this press conference. let me send it back down to you, wolf aaron. thank you very much. my excellent panelists here with me were awaiting the former president of the united states, cnn legal analyst, karen friedman, agnifilo is with us cnn senior legal analyst elie honig, his here. see cnn anchor and chief legal analyst laura coates, is with a cnn akre chief national affairs analyst kasie hunt is whether cnn politically i'm director david champion, of course, is here and cnn senior political analyst, nima leica henderson is with us as well. lots of excellent analysts who are going to assess what's going on. so casey, we heard that trump is not going to be speaking formally with a teleprompter reading a formally crafted speech off the cuff. what does that say to you? >> pretty telling, right. and this is a candidate president at one point and now again, a candidate who behaves very differently when he is not using a teleprompter, then when he is and his aides have gone out of their way to try to make sure that they control what, what does happen. and oftentimes some of the moments that stand out to us the most from his rallies or from other events are times when he's not using the teleprompter. so i think it says a lot about the tone and tenor of what we are likely to hear. i suppose we'll see i have to say, i'm just i am struck by the venue. i mean, i was at the event when he came down the golden escalator and announced he was running for president back in 2015 at trump tower, which we are now looking at the outside of it is hard not to be struck by just how far we have come as a country over the course of that time that we are now here covering an ex-president current republican nominee who's been found guilty on 345 years ago that other event was going on. eleia, as we know, and we've reported he still under a gag order, even though the convictions have come in. so what does that mean? what can he say? what can't he say in his off-the-cuff comments that are coming up. >> so the gag order is far more narrow that i think donald trump would have you believe based on his public a commentary as it stands at this moment, the gag order allows donald trump to criticize angrily, aggressively as he has done the judge, the district attorney, alvin bragg, the case against him, and even the gag order actually, what he cannot do is make public comments about the witnesses. question whether that'll stay in place now that the trial is over for the jurors, i think that needs to stay in place. and then the staff and the family members of the prosecutors and the judge. and as paul mentioned, there will be an appeal hearing on this next week. i don't think trump has much if any chance of getting this gag order overturned. it's quite narrow and i think it's respectful appropriately of his first amendment rights at the same time. so if you violates this upcoming remarks, which are about to begin, we're told violates the gag order. what's the punishment? two things, number one, he could be found in contempt. >> again, he's already been found to have violated at ten times. and the other thing is everything donald trump says from here on out is fair game at sentencing. so the prosecutor peters can say to the judge, looked this shows he has no remorse, he has not accepted responsibility, and on down the line, it all is fair game sentencing july 11, just what, a few days before the republican national convention in milwaukee, which will all be watching as well. >> karen is with us as well. karen, i just want to point out as we have two quick disclosure note karen is also counsel for a firm that represents michael cohen but has no contact with him and doesn't work on this case. is all and there are no restrictions on what she can say about this case. so trump's sentence is clearly now in the hands of judge merchan, whom he's repeatedly attacked. what do you think that could mean when it comes to sentencing? >> i think look, the judge is going to consider many things at sentencing. he's going to consider the fact that this is a very serious case. this is a case where the jury i pulled that the jury instructions the jury had to find unanimously the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person or let me just point out, he's now off the escalators. he's down there. he's getting ready. he's more than closer towards the microphone's. i want to hear what he has to say. so let's listen this is a case where if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone. these are bad people. these are in many cases, i believe sick people when you look at our country, what's happening, where millions and millions of people are flowing in from all parts of the world, not just south america from africa, from asia, from the middle east and they're coming in from jails and prisons. and they're coming in from mental institutions and insane asylums. they coming in from all over the world into our country and we have a president and a group of fascists don't want to do anything about it because they could right now today, he could stop it. but he's not the destroying our country. or countries in very bad shape. they're very much against me saying these things they want to raise your taxes by four times they want to stop you from having cars with a ridiculous mandates that make it impossible for you to get a car for the car make it very possible for china to build all of our cars. it's a very serious problem that we have. we just went through one of many experiences where we had a conflicted judge, highly conflicted. there's never been a more conflicted, judge. now, i'm under a gag order, which nobody has ever been under no presidential candidates ever been under a gag order before. i'm under a gag order, nasty gag order where i've had to pay thousands of dollars in penalties and fines. and was threatened with jail think of it. i'm the leading candidate. i'm leading biden by a lot and i'm leading the republicans to the point where that's over so the leading person for president. and i'm under a gag order by amanda can put two sentences together, given by a court and they are in total conjunction with the white house and the doj, just so you understand this is all done by biden that his people maybe his people more importantly, i don't know. biden knows too much about it because i don't know if he knows about anything. but he's nevertheless the president. so we have to use his name and this is done by washington and nobody's ever seen anything like it so we have a judge who is highly conflicted, you know what the conviction is, nobody nobody wants to write about it and i'm not allowed to talk about it if i do, he said i get put in jail so we'll play that game a little bit longer. we won't talk about it, but you're allowed to talk about it. i hope you do because there's never been anybody so conflicted as this as far as the trial itself, it was very unfair. we weren't allowed to allowed to use our election expert under any circumstances. you saw what happened to some of the witnesses that were on our sayyed, they were literally crucified by this man. >> who looks like an angel, but he's really a devil. >> he looks so nice and soft. people's ellie seems like such a nice man. no, unless you sell them in action and you saw that with a certain witness that went through hell and when we wanted to do things, he wouldn't let him he wouldn't let us do those things. but when the government wanted something, they got everything, they got everything they wanted it's a rigged it was a rigged trial. we wanted a venue change where we can have a fair trial. we didn't get it. we wanted a judge change. we wanted to judge. it wasn't conflicted and obviously he didn't do that there's nobody's ever seen anything like it. we had a da who is a failed de da? crime is rampant in new york, violent crime that's what he's really supposed to be looking at. crime is rampant in new york yesterday and mcdonald's, you had a man hitting them up with with machetes. a machete whoever he can imagine, even a machete being wielded in a store in a place where they're reading and he's going rampant and bragg is down watching a trial on what they call crimes, crimes they're falsifying business records. that sounds so bad to me. it sounds very bad. you know, it's only a misdemeanor. but to me it sounds so bad when they say falsifying business that's a bad thing for me. i've never had that before i'm falsifying. you know what falsifying business records is in the first degree? they say falsifying business records sounds so good, right it means that legal expense. >> i paid a lawyer totally legal are paid a lawyer a legal expense and a bookkeeper without any knowledge from me correctly marked it down in the books. a very professional woman, highly respected, she testified marked it down to the books as a legal expense. so a legal expense paid a lawyer is a legal expense in the bucks. it's not sheet rock construction or any other thing. it's a legal expense. think of that this is what the falsification of business records were. and i said, what else are you going to call it what else are you going to call it now i would have testified i wanted to testify the theory is you never testify because as soon as you test for anybody if it were george washington, don't testify because they'll get you on something that you said slightly wrong and then they sue you for perjury but i didn't care about that. i wanted to but the judge allowed them to go into everything that i was ever involved and not this case. everything that i was ever involved in which is a first in other words, you could go into every single thing that i ever did. was he a bad boy here? was a bad boy there emma lawyer said what. do you need to go through and all you wanted to do as testify simply on this case. because i would have loved to have testified to this day. i would have liked to have testified. but you would have been you would have said something out of whack like it was a beautiful, sunny day and it was actually raining out and i very much appreciate the big crowd of people outside. that's incredible. what's happening? the level of support has been incredible so the whole thing is legal expense was marked down as legal expense. think of it. this is my this is the crime that i committed that i'm supposed to go to jail for 187 years for when you have violent crime all over this city at levels that nobody's ever seen before, where you have businesses leaving and businesses are leaving because of this, because heads a business is a man, we don't want to get involved with that. i could go through the books of any business person in the city and i could find things that in theory, i guess let's indict him, let's destroy his life but i'm out there and i don't mind being out there because i'm doing something for this country and i'm doing something for our constitution. it's very important far beyond me at this can't be allowed to happen to other president's. it should never be allowed to happen. in the future. but this is far beyond me. this is bigger than trump, this is bigger than me. this is bigger than my presidency and the people understand it because i just see a poll just came out the daily mail that was the first one came out. who's done last night right after the verdict where i'm up six points six points from what we already where we were leading fairly, fairly substantially, we're up six points in the daily mail, paul, now, maybe other posts come out. it says something differently. but a lot of people have predicted it because the public understands and they understand what's what's going on. this is a scam. there's a rig trial it shouldn't have been in that venue. we shouldn't have had that, judge. he should have loud allowed us to have an election expert. we had the best expert, most respected expert head of the federal elections commission. he was all set to testify. he was waiting for two days and when it was his turn bragg's people protested and the judge knocked amount said you can't testify. he actually said you can't testify for anything having to do with the trial. you can say what the federal elections is. well, that doesn't help everybody knows that but you can't testify. so essentially, he wasn't able to testify. other people weren't able to testify. but with these people they were able to use people salacious by the way. and nothing ever happened. there was no anything, nothing have happened. did they know it? >> but they were saline as salacious as they could be. and it had nothing to do with the case but it had to do with politics. and do you notice the timing? the timing was perfect. this case was dead. it was dropped by every agency, every governmental board. it was dropped by the highly respected southern district they said no, there's no case here it was dropped by federal election, and that's what it's about this, about a federal election, not a state election. you're not even allowed to look at it. they took the state and the city and they wanted to a federal election. they're not allowed. >> the people from federal election, southern district, and washington dropped the case. >> everybody dropped the case. there wasn't okay. cy vance dropped the case. and when bragg came in, he said this is the most ridiculous case i've ever seen. and who would have a certain person again, gag order. who would have a certain person like this ever testify? he said this is essentially one of the worst people i've ever seen ever to testify is that the craziest case i've ever seen. this is bragg they want to announce i was running for president longtime later they decided to revive this case and they got to judge judge marsha and who was responsible for another case that was also brought a destroyed the life of a very good man by the way, destroyed the life of a very good man. who went to prison once. and then they just put them in prison again because they said he he lied. he didn't lie. i looked at the statements he made. in fact, he didn't remember something and they put him in jail. again. they've destroyed him with me for many years. he was an honorable person. he was an honest man and if you look at what he did supposedly it never happened. there's never been anything like this over the education of his grandchildren over he didn't report that he had a car or two cars on his income. i don't know. i wonder how many people here have cars. i wonder how many people said, oh gee, i have a car that's worth x does how to even figure it. and i guess you do have to report it, but i would say probably almost nobody does. nobody even thinks about it. they put this man, they destroyed this man but they put him in jail again because they didn't want them to testify they didn't want them to testify. that's why he went to jail and put them in jail twice he's 77-years-old now, normally, i'd say that's an old guy. but i don't feel 77. nobody ever says that about me. i'd like them to say qi. we have to have a little sorrow for this man because they just don't say that about me, but maybe i'm better off that way. i think i'm probably better off that way, but they put him in jail twice and you have to see what they put them in jail anyway is threatened by the judge this man was told you're gonna get 15 years in jail if you don't give up trump and he was told that you're going to get 15 years in jail and he made a plea deal because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life and he was told that viciously we're living in a fascist state he was told that viciously so you can go to jail for four months, five months or you can get 15 years in jail. >> so do a play almost who wouldn't do that plea. everyone does those plays. it's a horrible thing there's a whole group of lawyers that fight that it's so unfair. it's so unfair. but they destroyed his life. so many other things you look at southern district didn't want to bring the case nobody wanted to bring the case and then, you know, who didn't want to bring the case. most of all his brag brag didn't want to bring it, but then he brought it and they tried to make it a different case. they didn't say legal expense equal legally threads. >> again, if i wrote down and paid a lot and by the way, this was a highly qualified lawyer. now i'm not allowed to use his name because of the gag order. but you know, it's a sleazebags. everybody knows that. took me a while to find out but he was effective. he did work, but he wasn't a fixer. he was a lawyer, you know, they like to use the word fixer. he wasn't a fixed who was a lawyer at the time? he was a fully accredited lawyer. now he got into trouble not because of me. got into trouble because he made outside deals and he had something to do with taxi cabs. and medallions that he borrowed money and that's why he went and then he pled to three 33 election violations and as soon as i saw that i said, i wonder why he did that. he pled, he took a deal now it took a deal because he wanted to get off in other words, i'll take a plea deal and i want to get off. and he wanted to make a deal with the southern district and they wrote the worst report, i think i've ever seen on any human being other than the report that was written on james comey by the inspector general, a very great inspector general actually wrote a report that was so bad. >> this one was possibly worse the southern district, the judge didn't let us use it. he said it's hearsay. i said it's not hearsay. wouldn't let us use it. this is about the man but he got in trouble for a very simple reason because he was involved with borrowing a lot of money and he did something with the bank sayyed. it's defrauded the banks, but something happened you guys know what it is? then in addition to that he gave up on three things where he wasn't guilty. in fact, they were going to testify and that the head of the fec the brad smith, the election expert number one rated in the country was going to testify he took the plea on three things. he just added them in because that gave him more bargaining power with respect to me. but the three things that he pled on having to do with the election and having to do essentially a little bit with me they weren't crimes. they weren't crimes nor is paying money under an nda. so we have an nda non-disclosure agreement it's a big deal in nondisclosure agreement. totally honorable. totally good. totally accepted. everybody has them every company has non-disclosure agreements but the press gold, that slush fund and all sorts of other things hush money. hush money. he's not hush money. it's called that nondisclosure agreement and most of the people in this room have a non-disclosure agreement with their company it's a disgrace so it's not hush money, it's a non-disclosure agreement, totally legal totally common everyone has it and what happened is he signed a non-disclosure agreement with this first, i guess other people, but it's totally honest. >> you're allowed to make the payment. could you don't have to make it? you can make it any way you want. so non-disclosure agreement any sayyed that and there was nothing wrong with signing it and this should have been a non-case. and everybody said it was a non-case, including bragg bragg said until i ran for office and then they saw the polls i was leading the republicans, i was leading the democrats as leading everybody and all of a sudden they brought it back. it's a very sad thing that's happening in our country and it's a it's a thing that i'm honored in a way amounted. it's not that it's pleasant it's very bad for family it's very bad for friends and businesses. but i'm honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it and i might as well keep going and be the one. but i'm very honored to be involved because we're fighting for our we're going to continue to monitor donald trump in his remarks. he is making very, very strong statements and we're going to have effect fact check on those statements coming up shortly. daniel dale is standing by. aaron were listening to the former president united states say, and i'm quoting him now, we are living in a fascist state. he refers to the trial as a scam, a rigged trial. he says he would have loved to have testified he could have testified it was his decision not to testify. he said, quote, i would have loved to have testified. and then he went over, went after some of the witnesses, including michael cohen, for example, potentially a violation of the gag order that has been imposed by the judge against him, aaron, we're going to continue to listen to what the former president has to say. but clearly without a teleprompter. he's going off the cuff. he's railing against almost everything yeah. >> and wolf, the fascist state, of course the line that stands out. but as you point out the other key off the teleprompter, so it is very much off the cuff, so you're getting a rant and reliving of the case and how he sees it. but then the sort of hold a sacks, right? talking about polls are talking about his role or taking on a witness are talking about electric vehicles. i mean, it is it is very disjointed in the presentation. >> wolf, i'll also say in addition to the fascist state is very clear from what he said at the beginning then sort of he doesn't want to go to jail. and that was clear, which also raises the question of whether what he just said about michael cohen, who did not name by name but made it clear who he was and called him a sleazebags is a violation of that gore gag order. wolf, as you know, the judges said one more violation is jail time. so that'll raise that question as well as he's speaking without a teleprompter yeah, he's just the railing against almost everything involved in this case in which he was found guilty, 34 felony charges, criminal charges, very significant development, unanimous decision by the 12 members of the jury, daniel dale are fact checker. >> erin is with us as well. if i want to go to daniel right now, dan, do you do this all the time following a trump statement at trump's speech, you review some of the lives that have been going on a whole bunch of lies here, wolf. >> so he repeated the one i think he's repeated most frequently throughout the course of the trial. and now after saying this was all done by biden and his people, the case was conjunction with a white house and doj not a shred of evidence of that this case was brought by a locally elected yes. democratic prosecutor no evidence whatsoever of any communication with joe biden or his aides about it. he also repeated his claim from earlier this week that he said the judge wouldn't let them use an election expert under any circumstances does the judge knocked him out? now he did sort of clarify this after but here's the real clarification the judge did not bar the testimony of this expert, brad smith, trump's defense was permitted to call him, but didn't the judge did limit the scope of the testimony, saying he couldn't opine on whether trump broke the law, are not couldn't analyze federal election law, but did not say the expert cannot be used trump also repeated his claim, wolf, that crime in new york is at levels nobody's ever seen before as anyone who lived through the early 1990s in new york knows that is not remotely true. for example, murders in new york, there are 391 last year, while there were 2,262 in 1990. so not even close and it's further come down this year. and last wolff, former president trump said that michael cohen gotten trouble with the law for stuff that had nothing to do with him. trump. he said, oh, is cohen's taxi medallion business and so on. what that is misleading at best because yes. cohen did get in trouble for lying about his taxes, lying about things related to the taxi medallion business, but also gotten in trouble for campaign finance offenses related to the very same hush money scheme that trump got in trouble for. so directly related to trump and his prison sentence, wolf was also related to cohen lying to congress related to a negotiations of discussions with russia about a proposed trump tower project in moscow. so this was not cohen's own thing. oh, nothing to do with trump. some of it, at least was directly related to the former president, daniel dale are fact checker daniel. thank you very much. we'll get back to you. elie honig, dad did trump just now violate the gag order? >> he may add. he certainly came close to the line. and at one point he said, well, i'm not going to say the person's name that doesn't get you out of a potential gag order violation. it's obvious who he's talking about, but i will say judge, were sean has been very careful in the way he's applied this gag order and there were a few occasions where the da said this is a violation and the judge said no because trump's allowed to respond to things that michael cohen and others say about him publicly. michael cohen certainly did the media video rounds last night, had some things to say about trump's. so it may be that the judge finds that this is a response. what he said about michael cohen was largely inaccurate in the ways that daniel just laid out though, what do you think the most important line of this press conference for me was the very first one. if this can happen to me, it can happen to anybody that's the narrative. he'd like to put forth did have people challenge and think less of the justice system in this country. he's under the impression that a statute of falsifying business records, it's on the books is only ever been applied to him. he's only been the only person to ever be kicked vendor. that's simply not true. also, you spoke about some of the teeing up of what he will likely argue on appeal. namely two big points. number one, the inability to bring his campaign finance expert, which he erroneously says he was not allowed to do. that's not true. the second was about stormy daniels and having salacious details when we go to the first point though it's important he continues to repeat this claim about not being allowed to have the campaign finance expert in reality, that expert could have testified the defense chose not to have them testify why? >> because the judge limited even talking about the general background on the do you see what the laws are, what they could actually do? they said that you could talk about the purpose of the law and also talk about in general details what had happened. he could not opine as to the guilt or innocence of donald trump. is that what experts do? he also could interpret the law as well. and that is in line with what judges do with any the experts. otherwise, the prosecution can call their own expert. it'd be a battle of experts. that's fine too have. but at the end of the day, you cannot have an expert generally testifying about their knowledge only to actually say guilt or innocence. that's a job that the jury. and finally, just think about this moment in history. three, where we were at a former president united states is talking as if he is not running to be the head of the executive branch under that umbrella is the department of justice. he, in these statement is trying to have the american people believed that the justice system in america so, deeply flawed, not because of the experience of anyone else besides himself and i'm wondering if he's aware of the org chart media. we look at this issue of executive branch and who they actually oversee because he's cutting off his nose despite the political democratic face and listen, this was probably trump's biggest audience, right? >> in many, many months, so many americans or know about this verdict the court to hear him give some kind of statement in here. he used rambling. he looks awfully tired. he's a beleaguered to follow his train of thought. you'd really have to be knee deep in maga ism. you'd have to be knee deep in the goings on of this trial, which most americans are not. so here he is. i think there was a opportunity here. you always sort of have to go into a trump statement with sort of low expectations. i think he met those low expectations and surpass them with this very he rambling tangential speech completely self involved. it did have shades of, i think 2015 when he talked about immigrants coming over in front from different regions from africa in asia. so there, there are flashes of that. but this was a real, i think blown opportunity for him in a real reminder juror of how much he's aged and how much he sort of i think off his game. he doesn't really seem very strong in this. he seems very tired and believer and i got a little bit of news here because i just heard back from michael cohen when who i asked about what we're seeing happen here. you were talking about whether he violated the gag order. so cohen says to me, quote, trump's press conference was nothing shy of a bat s h t, crazy avalanche of broken brain word so i don't know if we are brought back into the back-and-forth, they would nullify this in terms of the judge, but i thought that firmly and not exactly, it's not exactly an exchange that's what americans are seeing who haven't seen trump in this way in quite a long time. i think that my j. there sorry. >> let me just brynn caring into this because you're a legal analysts that he really went after judge merchan in very, very brutal ways and something like nobody's ever seen anything like this before. he may look like an angel, but he's a devil. this is a rig trial, totally unfair this is judge merchan, who is going to have to decide on july 11 the sentence that trump is going to get does trump not realized that in going after judge merchan like that, he potentially is only hurting himself. he may get a more severe sentence as a result of this. >> well, the judge is somebody who is only going to take into consideration the factors that he is permitted to take into consideration if he's going to make sure that it's not personal to him. that's the kind of guy, judge. more sean is he has fixed skin. he's going to hear these things and he's going to make it a point to not allow those types of comments to factor into any, any personal feelings are animus to factor into his sentence. but what he will take into consideration is trump's lack of remorse, lack of acceptance of responsibility for what he has done. and now that is what he continues to do here. he's also going to take into consideration the fact that he violated the gag order ten times during the course of the trial, a gag order. it's court order, and being held in contempt means he defied the court. he didn't listen to the judge and i think finally to he's going to look at the fact that donald trump is continuing even if it's technically not a violation of the gag order, he's going after witnesses in the case. he hasn't crossed the bright red line yet of the jury that would be i think where the third rail would be for judge merchan right now, even after the verdict, because these are just 12 ordinary people who did there civic duty and served on jury duty. and that is what the judge is going to want to protect at all costs. >> yeah. i think, your honor percent right. aaron, back to you all right. >> wolf. alright. so i want to keep keep going through some of the things here. wolf that trump said, one of them, paula, he made a point of saying this entire case is political. it's driven by the biden white house, by the biden administration, by the department of justice. write this, this deepstate ultimate corruption point obviously that is completely lately in utterly false. >> yes. >> and even on the base of it, because why well, first of all, there's no evidence that there is a connection, right? >> this is a state-level prosecution, but also is speaking the sources over the course of the past year and around the white house and the justice department, they don't like this case it is repeatedly been referred to as quote, the runt of the litter, right? the less significant of the four that he faces. and there was always a concern that this could help trump politically. so there is a lot of frustration with bragg for bringing this by no means, are they behind this by no means do they? think this is a good thing that helps biden, which is a really important point, especially obviously doj didn't do not bring this case. they could haven't did not look, i my are you trying to go point by point through what? donald trump has said here because i think it's completely incoherent i think he's saying here, what's clear is his frustration and his rage that i get his words completely incoherent unless you have a glossary over what's taken place inside this this courtroom over the last several months, largely what he sounds like. it's humphrey bogart in the kane muni captain quick, like, oh, the strawberries. i mean, that's the vibe. that's coming off here from the podium with evening his hands there. it's it's nima weka. i think it's exactly right. there's an op. there was an opportunity here. this is a big political stage that donald trump has right now. the same political stage he launched his presidency, his candidacy for coming down that escalator. this does not match that. i mean, this is something which is very, very different than that picture is what trump's advisers often do. they differ to the candidate donald trump wants to operate in a particular way. he thinks he's the best strategist. he thinks he's the best communicator, the best communication strategies for his own campaign. he thinks he's the best lawyer you heard todd blanche basically say that last night donald trump wanted to be up there arguing his own case. but this is where trump's instincts are. he is very attuned, again to the base all of that stream of consciousness you need a glass of glossary if you are not clued in to the right right-wing media ecosystem. but for the right-wing media ecosystem, they know what he's talking about because he's been seeding these lines of attack for weeks and weeks and weeks. since even before this trial started. so you always have to see trump through this lens of the different audiences that he's speaking to. we have yet to see trump pivot to a message for the broader electorate from just from a political perspective. and i suspect you may not see him do that because you heard him here today. he said i'm leading. i'm winning. and from his perspective, what he is doing is working. he doesn't need to change, but i just want to caution everybody. we are in the end of may, there is a long way to go in this election. most americans are not plugged in yet and there is going to come a time when this is not going to be enough to reach the voters who really matter here, want to know more than just trump's grievances every day. >> all right? where he's still speaking. so as i said, everyone should understand we wanted to give you that analysis because there were so many false suds that were being spewed thereby trump, but we will go back in when we think appropriate. so we are continuing to monitor it jennifer, let me ask you that when you hear what he's saying completely unscripted and you realize this isn't a process of somebody who is could potentially be facing a jail sentence a, sentencing is coming, an appeals process and he's going off the cuff down various cul-de-sac that are not necessarily connected about the case what do you hear? >> as his attorneys? >> oh, yeah. i think todd blanche and they they got the white knuckles going right now, right. because they're just hoping that he doesn't say anything that will hurt him too much. but this is how it's been and there's no question that he's not going to show any remorse and he's going continue to attack the judge and the judge has been great about it. the judge has not been holding it against him in the rulings or in the demeanor in court, the judge is not going to hold it against him. >> at sentencing. >> i think the judge will hold against him the lack of remorse, but not the personal attacks, so they can pretty much let him go until and unless he basically cuts off some of their means of appeal by saying something under cousin appeal argument, which he hasn't done quite yet. >> so we'll see what happens aaron, i think think it's also hard when michael cohen is literally as trump is speaking, responding i mean, i don't know that the judge is going to be like, well, trump, you got to shut up because michael cohen keeps talking he's on tv. >> he will be on tv. it makes it very difficult, right i mean, it makes a critical point there because if you notice in the litigation over gag order violations, the judge let some really later to cohen slide, noting that look yet he you do have a right to respond. >> so yes, if michael cohen could have kept in his thoughts to himself, it would have made a stronger case for prosecutors that perhaps this was a gag order violation, but i've sort of compared trump to the raptors and jurassic park, like testing the fence for weaknesses. this is what he's been doing with the gag order. he knows if he had tax michael cohen, the judge will likely let it slide, but you won't hear him attacking the jury or the judge's daughter because he knows that's not going to fly. he was careful on that and yet and maybe because it's off the cuff and it's stream-of-consci ousness presentation that we're saying he can attack the judge if he could bring up the judge's donations divide needed not do that. he approved the judges right now. the judge, the devil, which is one of the less nice things can say about somebody but i just wanted to point out, people have been paying attention. what are the questions as o is any of this going to matter now, let me just for one second, john. he's dunn and he did not take questions so i want right. right. so let's just say i just want everyone understand our anticipation and trump's gonna do it. he's gonna do but our anticipation was that this would be about an hour it might take questions. so it was 40 minutes. he took no questions. that's actually interesting, john. it's like him. it's a set piece. he went out there. he said what he wanted to say you we'll let people decide whether or not it was effective. what he said that there and he's leaving and he doesn't want to be questioned on it. it just the one point i was gonna make is whether people are paying attention or not. he are harryette and points out than the hour after the verdict searches google searches for trump were up 3,200% 3,200% in that hour. so this is a moment where what you say raised $35 million in those hours. but the fact they say he didn't take questions i mean, we were the white house. >> then president trump would come out any de to answer questions about anything. so the fact that he's not willing to take questions follow-ups about what he said about this case. that surprising and suggests that maybe he doesn't have a lot of answers no, i mean, it is it is very unlikely, extremely unlike him and wolf. let me just pass it back to you. >> eric thanks very much i did the checking a spoke for about 33, 34 minutes, maybe a little bit more than a half an hour. they were billing it could go on for an hour and that they called it a news conference. and just to be precise, a news conference is when reporters are allowed to ask questions following an opening statement, no questions were allowed to be asked to. he didn't answer any questions, so it really wasn't a news conference. it was simply a statement or a speech by donald trump and it was interesting, david chalcone started as if it was a campaign speech going after biden and the immigration issue, the economic issues he was talking to at least at the beginning about the case? yeah. i actually thought when other than that opening line of this could happen to you it happened to me kind of thing and then he went right into the immigration piece and i thought, oh, he's going to use this opportunity to pivot now from the courtroom to the pivot such a dangerous work with donald trump, i realize, but to move from the courtroom to the campaign trail in a substantial way. and that's not at all what happened. what happened was a venting session. four, the defendant in this case who's now a convicted felon, 34 times over to just err all the ramblings through his mind about his grievances from this case. and we've heard pieces of it every day when he would go before the cameras in the courthouse, you can string together where these grievances are at each step of this case. but instead of using this to do that to make the case on immigration, on inflation, on crime, while on these issues that are top of mind issues for american voters odors he chose not to do that. he chose actually two step into the biden campaign frame of donald trump's candidacy. they say time and again, mitch landrieu set it on our air this morning. their argument is donald trump is making this 2024 campaign all about him and not about you. and that is precisely what he did at this rambling. i don't even know what to call it. just this venting session before cameras. yeah opened with a very, very blistering attack against president biden, basically suggesting is the worst president in the history of the united states. he can't speak, he can put two sentences together. he was going on and on about the democratic president of the united and then he went on for 45 minutes. >> let's to show that he can't really speak or put two sentences together it was i think surprisingly incoherence, a surprisingly all over the place he wants to make this argument about age against biden, but here he was looking kind of like an old man who was just ranting breathing in a self involved way to to your point, david channeling into the campaign's point as well. and so again, this wasn't a great outing for him i think it was probably smart of him not to answer questions given where he has been so far in this speech. and if you look at the times he has answered questions, he gets himself in trouble on any number of issues you think about the time magazine of cover story. he sounded terrible there and in terms of issues around the department of justice, around a board portion as well. and so listen, we're probably going to hear more of campaign trump. and if this is a preview of it, i think the biden team probably feels pretty good. i also think the fact that he didn't take questions is sort of telling in terms of his state of mind because it actually is typically some things certainly during the trump administration that he thrived on, right? he loves the back-and-forth with reporters. i guarantee you he looked out and saw faces in that crowd that he knew personally and any of us who've ever been in those crowds, i would do it quite a bit mute. come up when i was the capitol hill correspondent, i had covered the campaign and he would find you and 0.2 you, that is him in his element. and the fact that he decided that he was going to do what he did and then walk away. >> i actually find to be a telling reality and i think again, it's telling his advisors the camp payne wants to keep them on a teleprompter they see the polls, they know he could win this race and the ketone winning this race is to prevent a reminder to americans of the chaos that a lot of people felt in the trump administration. >> and quite frankly, this event was a reminder a telling piece of not taking questions because i totally agree with your assessment of that. >> is he uses that back-and-forth reporters or has to shape the narrative. >> and he so skilled at that, that's actually one of trump's real superpowers as a political persona on the stage for now, a decade in american politics, nearly. and he uses that back-and-forth reporters when he wants to strategically shape a narrative, he clearly didn't have that. he wants to just air his grievances. that's what his goal was today. he wasn't trying to get a narrative about his campaign and the strong position that he's in in this campaign. solidified and people's minds. that's not what he chose to do. and it's not clear that he can still do that. right. i mean, i think part of it. are we seen that trump is the trump of 20 2015, 20 16, end of the presidency. and listen everyone ages he even mentioned this, right in his speech there he said, i'm 77, but i don't really feel somebody which is exactly what april for senate. 77 question for the lawyers at the table to it. because what i see in the political decisions that were just on display there was someone who's not listening to those around him who say, we know what you should do here. and it does seem like there's some criticism in the wake of this just across it's the board guilty verdict of the way his defense team operated, perhaps because they were being forced to listen to him. >> well, i saw a parallel of his option decision not to take questions just now similar to weigh down the stand, he did not testify. donald trump has been known as his bone best spokesperson. he from the get-go, managed expectations among the american public to suggest that even mother teresa could not be these charges by the teresa would not have been charged to these allegations by the way. >> when i'm sure if she could probably beat him but you think about his vision not to act to testify in the trial as well, because for the very reasons likely politically speaking, he said that he would not be able to win one would say it would not have been a fool's errand to get his narrative out there knowing how much it would have been covered in, cetera, he chose not to for wherever his own personal reasons and defense counsel last night speaking to kaitlan collins, todd blanche said that he has never told a client not to testify, but they had made decisions together about why he liked police should not in this instance. >> and yet again, even without the framing of a prosecution team going after him for how many hours it would have been. he's still chose not to do so you could look at this as him saying the narrative or the defense, he could raise and the coral public planar otherwise is not plausible. >> elie, what he said, i would have loved to have testified i wanted to test if but he then gave this excuse and let's talk a little bit about that. the excuse was the judge would have allowed them to go into everything. i have ever been involved often inaccurate incorrect. >> of course, donald trump, like any defendant, would have had the option to testify without reservation if he wanted to do so. >> he chose not to now, the judge could you wait a ruling before the trial started that if he takes the stand, there are certain things outside the scope of the indictment that he could be cross-examined on because they would go to his credibility his truthfulness. but the judge also said there are other things the da wanted to ask him about. the judge said, no, those are no good. those are out of bounds. >> it's the same determination that a judge makes an error in any case he said some things are in play, other things to add to play it and just real quick, every word donald trump says from here on out, if i was done with trump's lawyer, would make me cringe. >> but for specific reasons you still have sentencing ahead. it's all relevant pre-sentencing. you still have a gag order in place. it all could go to that and you have an appeal and there are certain things that you can say that can the actually compromise your ability to make certain arguments on appeal. i know you can't get donald trump to be quiet, but it's not great for him legally to be making speeches. >> and i think the same excuses he gave we're not not testifying. the same excuses, not answering reporters questions today, even though they build it as a quote, news conference, a press conference, and whether a news conference it says when reporters asked questions, it's not a speech, simply, there can be an opening statement, but then reporters ask questions. that's a news conference. a press conference, if you will. maybe a journalistic narrative always been sensitive the first is by years covering the white house. i've always been sensitive, either the president's can make a statement or he's going to answer questions. and so we'll watch its solidarity. >> let's bring in thank kristen holmes. she's over there inside trump tower. give us your thoughts, kristen well, if i actually want to pick you back up something i dated said about being surprised quickly, donald trump pivoted from immigration back to airing his grievances for nearly 45 minutes. >> i would argue that this is his campaign strike saturday at least for the next several weeks, his team says that he is going to be doubling down on this messaging that they had started to see some republicans who were on the fence calling donald trump and calling them that donors and allies called last night that they raised this 38.4 million. and small-dollar donations, of course, we will have to verify by that with the fec. this is the campaign's claim that this is actually going to propel him forward. we do know one thing donald trump's base is angry and so his team is, you losing this trial as part of the political campaign. and i would venture to guess that this is the point that he will be hammering home over and over again. trying to tie this trial to president joe biden. again there is no indication at all no evidence that this is tied to joe biden's was brought by the state of new york but again, that is something that donald trump will continue to do. now we talked a lot about him not taking questions. this was him trying to take control of the narrative heard of knowing that. and i imagine i've been here inside of trump tower, so i'm not sure that every single tv station would likely take the top of his remarks so that he would get to say what he wanted to say to respond to this verdict in his own element. here. now, of course, in that sense, he's not going to take questions. we shouted at them he could hear us. he was making eye contact with us. i'm not sure who on your panel was saying, but that's something he does. he knew and decided actively not to take questions from the press and just take this as david said, in airing of his own grievances, trying to get out his own messaging and the other part of this is that this is really the only time i'm that he's going to appear for at least the next week in front of cameras, in front of reporters. this man is still running a campaign and he is not scheduled to have an event for a very long stretch of time. now that's possible to change, that could change. we know he's going to a fundraising swing onest coast starting thursday of next week they're not, they add any campaign events. but right now, this campaign is centered around this trial, his schedule has been almost a shell of an unconfirmed due dates as they await the verdict on this. and now that the verdict is out, or you are hearing from his senior advisers, you are hearing from the team around him who say they want to capitalize on this as much as they possibly can politically and financially excellent report. >> and kristen, thank you very much and karen, let's talk a little bit about one other thing that trump said. he thought that the potentially it could be sentenced to more than 100 years in prison, which is totally false. >> that's totally false because there is a statute that specifically says, when you are convicted of consecutive with a crimes that you can run consecutive at a certain point if you can't just add them all up to 187 or whatever the high number is, and it emerges in an all comes together and at the maximum actually is 20 years, even if the judge were to do that and run them all consecutive, the law would actually limit it to 20 years, but i don't think he's gonna get anything close to that i don't no, that prison time for him is even in the cards. it might be, but there's a wide range of sentencing options that he could get. he could get community service for example, where he has to pick up trash on the subways. he could get probation, he could get a fine, he could get weekends in jail, he could get no gel at all. so up to four years for each count. so there's a whole wide sentencing range, but to exaggerate and say that he could be sentenced to 187 years is just it's false legally, and it's false practically. >> an elaborate a little, but i think people have this notion that you are entitled to your presumption of innocence, and you can maintain your innocence. but in the second, the jury finds you guilty, then you have to change your tune completely and then say, okay, you got me. i actually did it. that's not what so-called allocution man's allocations at time for you u2 at sentencing, except responsibility and the judge's ruling in order. it does not require you to suddenly change your stance from being an innocent person to being a guilty person, but it does require you, in terms of sewing remorse, or accountability for the judges eyes to hear you talk about accepting the verdict as it is that the system of justice that is put you in this position and your behavior that led up to that moment. so donald trump cannot be under the impression are missing pressure and tried to create a narrative that suggests, now i have to pretend that i am not, that i am in fact guilty. a lot of defendants maintained their innocence throughout their appeals process while in prison and beyond that's not the requirement, but he cannot come out and he continues to do so. and suggested the entire system of justice is rigged because 12 jurors found him such and talk about the amount of political aspects of it, the voting habits of manhattan more broadly we sitting here today do not know the voir dire did not require that information to know how these jurors voted or whether it had any impact on their ruling in this case. in fact, if you remember him following the jury and paneling, he spoke about the alternate you spoke about the j. process, the best you could get in manhattan and almost fein a little bit surprised about where we were. so i want to be very clear. he does not have to suddenly say that he is guilty, but he does have to respect the process yes. the respect the united states of america, he says, we're living in a fascist state that is so obnoxious, that is so, so awful. he says the united states of america, we are living in a fascist state and everybody who was involved in this trial against him, these are all bad people. these are all sick people. those are his words he has said this 10,000 times and we've corrected it 10,000 times the claim that this is a biden prosecution can i just explain why that's false? this is brought by the manhattan de the manhattan de has nothing to do with the federal government, nothing to do with the executive branch, the manhattan de actually reports to nobody, not even the governor of new york, not even the age of new york is completely independent and set all right, everybody standby. >> there's a lot more we need to assess. we're watching history unfold right now, right here in the united states of america, would take a quick break. much more of our special coverage coming up right after this in one of the most active 22 seasons, you can't control what kinds of interventions can we design go inside the store to premiere of violent earth with liev schreiber, sunday at nine on cnn have heart failure with unresolved symptoms. >> it may be time to see the bigger picture. heart failure and seemingly unrelated symptoms like carpal tunnel syndrome shortness of breath and your irregular heartbeat could be something more serious called att rcn, a rare under-diagnosed disease that worsens over time sound like you call your cardiologist? and ask about attr san today. at america's beverage company are bottles might still look the same, but they can be remaking a whole new way. >> thanks to you. >> were getting bottles back and we've developed a way to make new ones from 100% recycled plastic new bottles made using no new plastic. >> you'll be seeing more of these bottles in more places. >> and when we get more of them back, we can use less new plastic. >> bottles are made to be remade can the riva support your brain health? >> marie janet, hey eddie, know, fraser, franck. franck, bread. how are you? >> fred, fuel up to seven brain health indicators including your memory joined the neretva brain health challenge when we say it'll be on time, they expect it to be on time turned shipping to your advantage, keep those expectations with reliable ground shipping thanks brandon with usps ground advantage with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, my skin was no longer mine my active psoriatic arthritis joint symptoms held me back don't let symptoms define you emerge as you withdrawn via most people saw 90% clear skin at four months. >> and the majority stayed clearer. i've five years from phi is proven to significantly reduce joint pain, stiffness, and swelling. it's just six doses a year after two starter doses, cbs allergic objections may occur, can fire, may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell you, doctor if you have an infection or symptoms for if you had a vaccine, are planning to emerge as you emerge trim fired asked your doctor about trump via we handcraft every stearns and foster using the finest materials like indulgent memory foam and ultra conforming inner springs for a beautiful mattress and indescribable comfort save up to $800 on select adjustable mattress sets at stearns and foster.com. >> your lives the operon massaging bone, easier to grip the massage and the power of two max strength pain relievers has worked for us he makes it less new. >> i see how probe massaging bomb good morning with focal acts good good. >> good yeah. try go lacks chewy fruit bites for fast and gentle constipation relief. and as little as 30 minutes, making your good morning even better with all galactic, i will never again lose to my brother decided isa, because i've switched to consumer cellular and now i get this same coverage. he's got for up to half the cost and the wonderful wins when freedom calls, we're here to answer power e trades easy to use tools may complex trading less complicated custom scans help you find new trading opportunities. >> while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of them margaret, each aid from morgan stanley how long have you been tracking the value of our car? should we sell it? we hold our low mileage is paying off. >> you think we should already sold the car? go to car ivana, and track your car's value today recipes recipes that are more than their ingredients recipes written by hand and lost to time