the trump foundation for a 15-year tax fraud. now he has this one. that is a big deal. and i think we should recognize the skill, the talent, and the drive that undergirds everything that happened here. i am, however, also looking at the way trump allies, wanna be trump allies and the republican party writ large is reacting to this. i agree with you, joy. the specter of a republican front-runner being crowned the nominee four days after the sentencing, becoming a felon, is something we never thought he would see in americans history. the reality is the trump team, the rnc. >> republicans across the country think this is a gift to them. eric trump saying today, may 30th, 2024, might be remembered as the day donald j. trump was re-elected. and that is not to say that's necessarily what's going to happen, but it points to this incredible schism in american culture and politics where one, i think earth one, as rachel maddow likes to call it, understands what happened here as a testament to the rule of law and the integrity of the justice system. earth two, which is populated and has been taking over by donald trump, sees this as the very manifestation of a broken system, and it is the thing that will crown him king once again. and that to me is really jarring and deeply distressing. >> i would just add, there's a number of tests on the system here in addition to whether or not he can vote. he can't buy a gun in a number of states. he can't join the military, not that he's planning to do that. he's scheduled to start getting classified briefings once he's the nominee. convicted felons don't get classified briefings. there are a number of moments that are unprecedented, that will be decisions for the government, decisions for others to watch. i have also been struck by what you talked about which is the overwhelming reaction from the republican side in calling this everything from a witch hunt to all of the other terms they're using. what's also been striking to me is the tone that alvin bragg just used. you could see that there was a weight lifting off his shoulders, but he didn't celebrate. he didn't cheer. he was serious. he thanked the jury. he thanked civil servants. he thanked everyday jurors, 12 everyday jurors which i thought was an interesting phrase he used. that's also a similar tone that you're seeing from the white house. you're seeing that from most democrats, i think this is important because this is a moment where i think there's a lot of relief people are feeling out there, democrats. but it's also a moment to recognize this is a serious thing that's happening, and we shouldn't be celebrating in the streets because it's not a moment to celebrate, really. and also, because the campaign is not going to be won or lost over what just happened today and what will be happening later in july. >> and everyone is talk about how justice works. joy made a very important point that this is not to be gamed out and ordered and pushed around and spin and which case do you prefer? this is not a game, and it shouldn't be done for political purposes where campaign operatives might say, well, this topic is better than that one or this is about national security, not pre-presidential activity. no, this happened because it was legally valid so it made it through the process, and it was local so it was less subject, if people at home are keeping track, it was less subject to the federal government issues some of which are real and some of which he's gotten a huge assist from the supreme court. the federal issues. he's not the former mayor or governor in new york, so there aren't those issues. we just heard from the d.a. walking through that. i also in a moment want to get andrew weissmann's response to newsworthy comments by the d.a. not only about letting the sentencing talk through the court process, but also when asked about the threats which we covered. going back down to the courthouse where we have been watching all of this, and many of us have been in that courtroom, vaughn hillyard has been reporting on all of this. we mentioned, vaughn, about the discussion whether there are people in the streets. as you know from being down there, there are days where more people are there, some of whom were sympathetic to the defendant. today earlier, rachel showed we had video of other types of protesters showing up to respond. now that we heard from the d.a., what can you tell us about what's happening down there and the rest of your reporting? >>. >> reporter: i would say there's several dozen folks here. i would hut them more in the category of observers than protesters. the verdict came within a matter of minutes for all of us being alerted the jury was going to read how they decided on the 34 counts. what i can tell you having covers donald trump consistently over the years and consistently two years on the campaign trail, the fact is donald trump is going to do what it takes to try to win the court of public opinion. his son said in a tweet, may 30th, 2024, might be remembered as the day donald j. trump won the 2024 presidential election. it almost is an echo of the testament that the trump campaign made a year ago when he was indicted. you saw donald trump at that time pull away from the rest of the republican field. of course, it was ron desantis who was a florida governor, who said if donald trump chose not to leave the state of florida to be arraigned, he would not help with these extradition. so what you have seen over the course of the last hour since this verdict was read here from lower manhattan, a litany of other republicans including the likes of ted cruz, whose name was evoked often in this trial, as somebody who the "national enquirer" directly targeted or i should say targeted not only him but his wife as well as his father, through headlines, false headlines they posted in the "national enquirer," but he called this a dark day in america. of course, we will wait to see. there is likes of nikki haley, who just a few months ago said america would not vote for a convicted felon. we will wait to see what her response is to these charges, just one week after she said that she would in fact vote for donald trump over joe biden. but this is a moment where i think we often in our role as journalists have to wrestle with the words that donald trump says outside of the courtroom. knowing that 12 jurors who i should say when we talk about these jurors, donald trump's own defense team, they only challenged for cause one of these 12 jurors. they did not protest having 11 of these individuals be seated. for donald trump going out and making his case over the next five months about what took place inside this courtroom may be very different than the reality of what actually did go in. one final point i would make off this when we're following this politically, are the words of michael cohen, from eight years ago having watched this campaign closely. michael cohen was a constant presence around that campaign and the words he said one day during testimony was, quote, i was following directions. and the prosecution asked if he had any regrets about what he did. he said, quote, i regret doing things for him that i should not have, lying, effectuating the goal. i violated my moral compass. time and time again, we have seen donald trump offer loyalty of republican allies and time and again they have come to his aid. the question is does a moment like this and does a character like michael cohen send a signal to others to step aside from the presumptive republican nominee ahead of what is going to be a consequential white house election, guys? >> vaughn hillyard, fair questions. we'll keep up with you tonight. the aforementioned michael cohen who was the star witness in the case will be speaking out for the first type since this verdict dropped tonight on msnbc at 8:00 p.m. eastern as our special coverage continues. we're doing it in teams. andrew weissmann has been standing by to react to some of the news d.a. bragg made. i want to read it, the question was posed by a reporter in the room. quote, do you plan to request a prison sentence? i think when you put aside everything else of what this may mean, and all of the important aspects of justice and the process we have discussed, that is the biggest question out in the country tonight. it was posed. quote, do you plan to request a prison sentence? the d.a. replied, quote, donald trump mfs multiple violations of the gag order, the judge has scheduled a sentencing hearing. we also set a motion schedule, we'll speak in our filings as we have done in our proceeding, end quote. i'm being very precise. at times in the transcripts we would say we don't have that, but every word will be parsed by trump's legal team, and they'll be thinking about whether there will be a process initiated to try to incarcerate him and whether that will be successful. what can you tell us about what we heard? >> i think there are two things to keep your eye on. one is whether they seek a prison term. it doesn't, by the way, they can seek it. it doesn't mean the judge will give it. obviously, donald trump's team will say no. he's a first time offender. if you consider whether he has been convicted, not in terms of his underlying conduct. but one issue is will they seek the prison term? the second is, if they do, when it would be served. you could imagine them trying to figure out a way to deal with the fact, if he is in fact the republican nominee, trying to figure out whether it would be served after the election. depending on what happens. in other words, that is part of the calculus that they're going to be thinking about because one thing that will weigh on judge merchan is going to be if i'm thinking about jailing him for any time, do i do it while the election is pending or do i do it november 15th? in terms of the first part, seeking jail, it is impossible for me to think that they will not factor in that the judge has found ten violations of the gag order. and beyond a reasonable doubt. and those violations are not small things. the last one was a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of a disrespect of the court order to protect jurors. it's hard to think of something more serious. >> so you think they will ask for -- >> jail. >> okay. >> how does the appeals process factor into that? >> so -- >> sorry. >> absolutely, so let me give you a few other factors. the issue is sort of when he might have to serve. not just sort of what the judge does but whether he says you can be out pending appeal. normally, to be out pending appeal, there has to be a serious legal or factual issue presented. now, we all know in steve bannon's case, for instance, the judge said yes. in white collar cases, it tends to be that judges do allow somebody to stay out. that would deal with the sort of issue of how to deal with the campaign. the first issue is does he even get jail time. you have the gag order violations. you have things that show complete lack of remorse. all of the conduct that you just saw, the showing up on tv right after the verdict and basically saying this is a kangaroo court and disrespect jurors and disrespect the judge, all of that goes to, you cannot -- could you think of a defendant with any more lack of remorse? so if you think about the risk of recidivism and the lack of remorse, there is such an array of things for the state to point to. and i think the argument will be, if there is any e-felony case where you would ever send somebody to jail, it's this. and he has to be treated like everyone else. the jurors just did it. the jurors just did their duty. they were willing to say, you know what, even if he's a former president, if it's proved beyond a reasonable doubt, i will do my job. i think the judge will think the same way. >> part of what you're saying is this is on paper a lower offense. so e is down here, a nonviolent felony. but on top of that, you have not one, not two, but several contempt citations for violating this judge. so there's two steps here, joy. there's what we just heard the d.a. say he's going to wait on. they will later tell us through the court process if they request jail. and then what the judge decides. >> and i have another question that goes to both of you because i just quickly googled, in 2018, when the southern district of new york, when the southern district indicted michael cohen, for the same conduct plus some tax vileses, it was the same case, which is why this case made sense as an easily convictable case, because there had been a nonprosecution agreement for david pecker's organization, ami, on the same facts, and michael cohen was convicted on the same facts for the same conduct. he got three years in prison. he was also a nonviolent first offender. he had committed no previous crimes. he had not been a felon before. he was a first offender, and donald trump's justice department, and i have to say that again, donald trump's justice department prosecuted michael cohen and gave him a three-year sentence plus a $50,000 fine. for the same conduct. now, does the -- i know it's a state case, i know it's separate, but it's the same conduct. is it taken into account that a person who was a coconspirator got three years? >> i'm going to add another fact to make your point. one of the reasons he got three years and not a higher sentence is michael cohen cooperated with the mueller investigation. >> he pleaded guilty. >> he pled guilty, he didn't go to trial. that's a benefit in terms of senten sentencing. you get a lower sentence just for doing that. he also cooperated. i know that the southern district says he didn't cooperate with that case, but the mueller case, he got a cooperation agreement and he was given that letter. so the one quibble would be that some of what -- some of what sort of was the result of that sentence was other conduct. so that was something that the judge could consider. but there is no question that one of the arguments, you should come to court and make it, is one of the arguments that the d.a. will make is comparability. the underlaying is going to jail. this is something we have seen in the january 6th cases. it's why i always thought judge chutkan, if she eventually has the opportunity, would send donald trump if he were convicted there to jail, because it's so anathema to the criminal justice system that an underling would go to jail but the boss would not. >> that's how he answered it, if you're joining us we're covering the first ever conviction of a former president in the united states. donald trump convicted on all 34 counts on these felony convictions. if you're keeping track or wondering about all of those counts as we have been reporting, there were some based on his personally signed checks. others on invoices and documents from his companies that his own aides and former sort of officials involved had testified were at his behest. this jury of 12 new yorkers who listened to all of the evidence, convicted across all of those counts, all of those types of documentation. we heard from d. aflt bragg today for the first time he has spoken publicly since he first filed the charges. he's now won this case. i want to play more of what we heard today. >> the 12 everyday jurors vowed to make a decision based on the evidence and the law and the evidence and the law alone. their deliberations led them to a unanimous conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, donald j. trump, is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election. and while this defendant may be unlike any other in american history, we arrived at this trial and ultimately today at this verdict in the same manner as every other case that comes through the courtroom doors. by following the facts and the law and doing so without fear or favor. >> bragg just speaking within the last hour. jen psaki, you have served in government. you have been around these issues. and you look at a day like today that we have actually never experienced before. we live in a time of both hyperbole and propaganda. if we follow the history and facts, today is significant, one of a kind, may not reoccur for a long time. that might be a good thing for future presidents and veterans of the white house. what does this mean, do you think, in the long run? >> well, i want to go back to a point joy was making earlier, which i have been thinking about all day since we heard the verdict. this was called the zombie case. remember that, for a period of time? there's been a lot of frustration among a lot of americans about the pace of a range of these cases including cases that have not yet ben tried and may not be tried this year. the wheels of justice work very slowly, as we know. the frustratingly slow at some time. i think a lot of people didn't believe we would be at this moment, but what bragg just said, this is a very different defendant, but we arrived at this in the same way we would any other. that's our justice system working. that is how this is supposed to work. i don't mean the outcome. what i mean is you have evidence. you indict. there is a case where the defendant is allowed to testify on his behalf if he chooses. you argue the case, you have a jury of your peers that are selected. the jury of your peers consider it, take it with seriousness as everybody who has been in the courtroom has said, and they made a decision. that's what happened. that's our justice system moving at a slow pace, yes, but working how it should work. i think we should pause for a moment not just on the outcome but the fact there have been questions about how our justice system was working, and we have seen how it can conclude itself. with a jury of peers, of everyday men and women as d.a. bragg described them earlier today. >> i think that's striking. and it's not that we're all trying to do a civics class. but it is striking to hear how the d.a. put it. he talked about the jury. i want to read that, then we have something new from the case. he said, quote, today we have the most important voice of all. that's the voice of the jurors. they have spoken. and donald j. trump has been convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records, thank you, end quote, and press conference. and as we're tracking all of this, i believe we have, i have been told, the verdict sheet, which we have not put up yet in our coverage. this is the actual verdict sheet, as you can see. it's long because there were so many counts. when nicolle, rachel, and i were first breaking the verdict news, we were working off our reporters who were in the room, who were responding to that being read aloud. but this is a transparent process, this is the documentation. joy, this is our system of government. this here is for public review. it could have been split. it could have been half of them. could have been just the checks, could have been one out of 34. could have been an acquittal and we would have been covering that under the rule of law the same way. again, what do you think of this living history? we're putting this on the screen for the first time, the jury's handiwork. >> it's remarkable. going the two days i went to court, the first being during the pecker questioning. it was fascinating to get some time to be in the room with the jury. these were the seven men and five women, you really couldn't get a good look at them. but what you could see is that they were serious about what they were doing. they were paying attention. they were attentive, sometimes trump was not. you can see that they took their job seriously. and when they sent questions in, i think it indicated how they were going to fill out that form. they asked questions that really reflected the order, not just of the prosecution's closing argument, but the order in which they heard witnesses which i found fascinating because it seemed like this was a jury that everyone does their homework, like getting a really good class in college where everyone actually does the work and they seem to have all done the reading. that form allowed them to go through. a split verdict would have meant they had to put on the form, we think that -- i don't remember it was 11 checks, we think on check number one, there wasn't a conspiracy to convict election fraud. but on the record from the trump foundation, we think there was. we think that maybe this 1099 form from michael cohen was the crime, but that one wasn't. that didn't seem to make sense. so the second day i went, which a lot of people were like, you drew the short straw, i went on the day that the jury was instructed. i'm glad that was the day i went. because the jury instructions were so specific, and they were such a great road map for how as a juror i would have worked on the case. he really explained here is what you pay attention to, here's what you consider. here's what you don't. so simple that they asked to hear it again. so good, they wanted -- so nice they wanted to hear it twice. so i really feel that between this judge, whose demeanor was therapeutic, the way this whole thing was set up, and i know that's a standard jury form in the state of new york, i think the whole case was done so well, you have to say this was a really fine reflection of our criminal justice system. i'll say that and pivot to one more thing. >> i'll say, you recounted 11 checks. it was 11 checks. >> back to the sentening for a moment. lisa reuben pointed out in the state of florida, because he was sentenced in new york, he likely would retain his right to vote unless he was in jail. the question or whether he goes to jail is important for his right to vote. i just want to note that marilyn moseley, the former state attorney from the city of blear was sentenced on a case that also involved mortgages in which she had taken her own money out of the bank to buy property, a case a lot of people found shocking, that the u.s. justice system would bring it at all. she was sentenced to three years of supervised release and 12 months of home convinement. she's a former -- not a state attorney, a city attorney for the state of baltimore, an attorney, first in her family to go to college. she's not a criminal. she took her own money out of the bank. if she has to be on home confinement for 12 months, how could it be possibility that donald trump wouldn't be sentenced to home confinement if the system is equal and fair? >> that's the big question. you mentioned lisa reuben who was one of our lawyers we were trading seats with. lisa has been at the courthouse again today. so joy mentioned a point you raised as well. you're also joining us again. tell us what you're seeing down there, your thoughts tonight, and given we have all lived through this, i want to know what you thought of what d.a. bragg said and chose not to say in his remarks tonight. >> reporter: well, let's start with d.a. bragg, ari, because the thing that struck me most about what alvin bragg said tonight, in addition to all the things he wouldn't say, were four words. i did my job. alvin bragg has been under consistent attack by trump, by his allies, by the larger republican party, and that attack is not one that is in isolation. that attack also contains a healthy amount of racism spoken and unspoken. i think alvin bragg, while he was not celebrating as jen noted, no spiking in the end zone here, alvin bragg was very happy tonight to say, i took my time, i did my job. i went where the facts and the law took me without fear or favor. in that way, this investigation and this prosecution were no different than the work that this office does day in and day out. i think he took a lot of pride in saying that. alvin bragg is known as a very methodical prosecutor. when he took office, he wasn't just willing to take the words of the people who had been helping cy vance, mainly mark pomeranz and carrie dunn, but he wanted to make sure he was comfortable with the theory of the case. i'll also remind you the theory of the case that was ultimately litigated here, that zombie case, was one that palm arants never loved or was enamored with because it was novel in some ways, it involved a state crime predicated in some respects on federal law. and also, there was a feeling that jurors just wouldn't understand it. and yet, the jury in their verdict today is showing that they understood what josh steinglass meant when he said simply the records are the what. the conspiracy is the why. they understood that. i want to talk about the jury for a second because you guys have been talking about the importance of these 12 everyday jurors, as alvin bragg called them. i want to call back to something todd blanche said at the very beginning of his summation. because it strikes a discordant note with what his client, now convicted felon donald trump, is saying this evening. todd blanche started, you guys, every one of you have been here on time, and we see you paying close attention to the evidence all day, every day, and we really appreciate that. our criminal justice system as judge merchan just told you, is unique. there's not a lot of justice systems in the world like ours where a group of citizens like you actually decide the facts. it's not the prosecution, it's not the judge. it's not a group of judges. it's you all that decide the facts. so this total exhlitation of our jury process by todd blanche, and then tonight, of course, the chorus of, it was rigged. this was all to call him a felon. this is more election interference. you don't see that same exultation of the jury process because they don't like the results. and i doubt that would have been the reaction on this channel and many others if they hadn't convicted donald trump, we would have done what chuck rosenberg suggested in a piece he wrote earlier this week and say, the jury worked the way it was supposed to. the system worked the way it was supposed to. the justice system is imperfect. but its imperfections are important. its perfection lies in the fact we entrust the decision to a group of 12 ordinary people who as you noted have filled out this verdict form. one final thing i want to point out. the foreperson signed at the bottom. instead of his name, we see the notation, b-400. that was his assigned juror number. merchan said to jury when they went tonight, said i have given you lots of admonitions during the trial. and those all go away tonight. and you can talk to whoever you want to or you can choose not to talk. that's entirely your choice. but the choice is yours. i'm reminded of the fact that months and months later, after two e. jean carroll trials with two unanimous juries granted civil trials, we still don't know who any of those jurors are, there were nine in each trial. while we're eager to find these people because we would like to talk to them, i know we desperately want to talk to them, there's a part of me that's hoping they take merchan seriously and that juror b-400 stays juror b-400. >> right. lisa, again, that will be their call. you know, they were told, you gave this matter the attention it deserved. i want to thank you for that. you're free to talk about this case. the choice is yours, end quote. there are menopy people including journalists who would love to hear from them and have a society where people can speak out. there are threats to many different people, including whistleblowers. we'll see, as you reminded people, there are many who stayed silent. in the 30 seconds we have left with you, andrew weissmann said he would expect on this fact pattern legally for them to request jail time. what is your expectation? >> i think that's my expectation as well. the fact that alvin bragg wasn't willing to say so tonight is just in keeping with the kind of prosecutor that he was. he was a federal prosecutor and worked for the attorney general's office before he ran for district attorney here in manhattan. while he had never worked in this office, alvin bragg traditionally comports himself more like somebody who works for the federal department of justice where you act in totality through your papers than like analected law enforcement official. sometimes that tension is something alvin bragg finds hard to navigate. as "the new york times" reported. i think he meant what he said. they'll act through their papers and my expectation is exactly the same as andrew's. >> i definitely wanted to get your read on that because you have logged many frequent flier miles in those seats without moving, as we have. thank you, lisa. we appreciate you. i want to bring in alex wagner. as they say in local town halls across the country, a comment and a question. that's where you have to buckle up. here's my comment. as lisa was telling us that, this is not normal. >> no. >> we don't want it to be normal as a society, and many other people who as we were discussing with raiching, are convicted of this or less, are disqualified from far less than this. people who are convicted of any felony can't be police officers, can't serve on corporate boards, can't be fiduciaries. if you're at a law firm and tell someone, you can plead to a felony but you can never have one of those cushy jobs where you're a fiduciary, that's because the low, relatively unregulated environment of wall street and corporate life in america still has the standard that you don't have a felon be cfo. >> right. >> and investors don't like that. low bar, alex. my comment and then question to you is, how does america take this in? we're here trying to make sense of it objectively so that might be useful or of service. people will make up their own minds, as we say. how do we make sure we take in the fact that for far less than this, it's disqualifying. and it's not an opinion, and it's not a criticism and not an observation anymore. it is a legally binding conviction on the matter of both fraud related to an election crime. >> well, i think you're seeing the trump strategy on that, which is we know donald trump has his own gravitational force field. i think he's effectively making the argument and has been with this assistance of his allies that this court is a different court than all the other courts that exist. that may hold people to account, either justly or, you know, as chris hayes said, we have a fairly remorseless criminal justice system on some levels. it's as if that world exists independent of what happened in new york city today. and he's done everything in his power, donald trump, i mean, to impugn the integrity of the judge, of the area from which the jurors were selected. he made a point today on the courthouse steps saying we got five to 6% in this part of new york state. he has made it so that the kangaroo court that found him guilty today is separate and apart from the rest of the criminal justice system that people may understand and believe it to the degree they still do in america in 2024. so i think in that way, we have seen this time and time again with trump. the rules don't apply to him. this judge, this court, this jury, and i do hope they keep their names and identities anommous, because we have seen the vitriol and terror that trump would like to direct to this judge and his family to alvin bragg, his family, to a number of prosecutors across the country, and one can only assume he'll do the same character assassination with the jurors should they come forward. donald trump creates his own ecosystem and i think he'll try to do that with regards to the criminal justice system in this particular case. so convicted felons, do they get a shot at the presidency? well, if it's a kangaroo court and it's donald trump's world, maybe they do. >> the other factor is what allows him to create the ecosystem. it's the enablers in the ecosystem. we'll see and be monitoring and sharing with people what people are saying. but we pulled earlier today, even before this, what some people have been saying in the last couple days. tim scott, who obviously wants to be the vice president, he posted a full minute video saying alvin bragg is the only one who is guilty. called the trial a sham and witch hunt. the only verdict that matters is the one at the ballot box. rubio compared it to cuban show trials. kristi noem called it a rigged trial. ted cruz called it a kangaroo court. byron donalds say this is election interference. this is what allows trump to create his ecosystem and they're incentivized because they want to be the environment, they want to be in his good order, and this is the republican party. >> i'm sorry, you triggered me thoroughly. >> i didn't mean to trigger. i'm just reading quotes. >> byron donalds who is from east flat bush, brooklyn, as myself, and tim scott, who is from the great state of south carolina, and marco rubio, who is latino, they know damn well who normally ends up at the bottom of this criminal justice system -- >> who are the actual victims affa two-tiered system of justice. >> they know exactly what they're saying is not just factually incorrect, that in the state where byron donalds is a congressman, his governor, ron desantis, has dog walked black voters for voting. and had made a show of it to make sure they're on television. to humiliate them out of voting, to frighten them out of voting. his state is the one that passed overwhelmingly a constitutional amendment to restore the voting rights of people because they had that post-enslavement jim crow law automatically taking the rights of felons to vote from them, that's a jim crow relic. that state had it, they repealed it, and governor desantis and republicans interfered with it to make it harder for people who served time to vote. they understand fully because they have lived in the bodies of black men. those two black men, and their wr willing to sell themselves cheap, cheap, not even clarence thomas will do that, at least he requires it to be expensive. for them, it can be absolutely dirt cheap, free. that's the cheapest it could be, to sell your soul. and the lives and memory of all of the black men and women and brown men and women who have suffered in a criminal justice system where they can't delay it, where the supreme court won't help them, where they won't have samuel alito flying upside down flags for them, where they won't have any of the benefits that donald trump has used to kill every case but this one, including humiliating fani willis in georgia, to try to shame her out of prosecuting him. the good thing, the one good thing that happened here is that this case was brought in a state that no republican controls, because if it did, the same thing that happened in georgia would have happened here. thank god for the state of new york, donald trump's home state. because there was no way for him to interfere with the process of justice. and in this rare instance, as somebody who is quite critical many times of the criminal justice system, the system actually worked the way it is supposed to work. i agree with you, the one thing that would ruin this very rare moment when we can all say the criminal justice system can actually see past your power and see past your race and your wealth, the only thing that would ruin it is if anyone finds out who these jurors are. god help them. >> because of their safety. >> you're talking about whether you have that violence and vigilanteism. you're also discussing the intersection between laws and lawmakers. the politicians. we have someone who has been standing by to weigh in on this for the first time who can speak that, a former prosecutor and former united states state senator, claire mccaskill. your reaction to this verdict today, donald trump convicted on all 34 felony counts. >> well, i'm going to try to set aside all of the things i want to talk about as a former courtroom prosecutor. and i want to talk about this a little bit to a political lens. i think there's good, there's bad, and there's downright ugly. and some of this is going to be teeing off what jen and joy just talked about. the good is that we watched the system work. up close. we watched carefully a judge be fair. we watched the defense lawyers have an opportunity to absolutely disqualify jurors for no reason at all. they could just say we don't want them, or for cause. we watched them have an opportunity to present any witness they wanted, including the defendant. we saw the judge sustain their objections. and we saw the system work. and it is a glorious moment for those of us who have worked in the system to say that it worked. the bad is that this calcifies the maga base in a way that will energize them, and that is not good in my opinion for this country because of what it possibly means. the ugly is somebody like mike rogers. mike rogers is running for the u.s. senate in michigan. i could argue that michigan may be the most important state in november. he was chairman of the intelligence committee in the house, and most importantly, he's a former fbi agent. he knows this system is not rigged. he knows the department of justice is not full of partisans. or democrats or republicans trying to get some results for political reasons. he knows better. or lindsey graham. what about him? a former military prosecutor. he knows better. like joy said, all these lawyers, these republican lawyers, i mean, it's just ugly. it's just ugly. so that's the good, that's the bad, and that's the ugly. now, i will say politically, i do think this will help with swing voters. for somebody like mike rogers in michigan, for him to have said two hours ago what he said, this is some kind of, you know, politicalization of, weaponization of the justice system, independent swing voters in michigan are going, what, really? i don't think so. and he needs those swing voters to win. he cannot get elected, and nor can trump get elected just with his maga base. so we need to realize that i'm not saying this is going to decide the election. i agree with jen on that. but it isn't going to help trump with the voters he has to have in the suburbs of philadelphia, the suburbs of detroit, the suburbs of phoenix. that's not going to help with those voters, having been convicted of 34 felony counts. >> claire, i agree with you completely. and i think the notion that this would be totally helpful to trump with those key voters seems also incorrect or doesn't seem right, even though we have to wait and see what the politics are. i wanted to ask you, we both talked to people in the democratic party and people in biden world about what they're doing. we have seen the statement that is very -- it's about a couple words that the white house did, the campaign did a larger statement, reminding people which i think is smart that there will be a judgment at the ballot box, as in don't rest on your laurels, people. don't be out there celebrating in the street. i think that was the underlying message. it does seem like they'll do some fund-raising from this. what do you think the campaign or biden surrogates, people out there who are watching and wondering what do i do in this moment, what should they be doing to reach out to independent swing voters without overcelebrating or over torquing this moment? >> well, i think having conversations with people who have not made up their minds, having conversations with people that they think maybe have voted for trump in the past, just about the reality, what it says to the rest of the world if we were to elect a convicted felon. what does that say going forward? what does that say about our system? you know, listen, trump has done a lot of bad things. but we have to put a mirror up to the whole country. we're living in a country where according to polling, about half the people think it's okay that trump paid off a porn star. they think it's okay that he promoted an insurrection and tried to hold on to power after he had been fairly and freely turned out of office. so this is really a gut check moment for american voters. not just folks that did the conduct, not just donald trump and his minions. and the ecosystem of the conservative media that is promoting him. but for everyday voters just like everyday jurors, they have an obligation to take a cold clear look at this and decide, do you really want this guy in your living room and in the oval office for the next four years after he's been convicted of felonies. >> claire mccaskill, with some fair points, both from the perspective of a former prosecutor who upheld these laws and a senator. thank you tonight. >> you bet. >> let me reset a little bit as everyone is joining us here. we're approaching the 8:00 p.m. hour on the east coast where michael cohen will be a very special newsworthy guest in msnbc's special coverage which will be led by rachel, nicolle, joy, and our whole team. we have not taken breaks since this jury returned its verdict of guilty on all 34 counts for donald j. trump. he is convicted by a jury of his peers today. this is the only trial that was scheduled to occur or complete as of this moment before this year's election. he also awaits sentencing in july. we can tell you that is the normal and standard timeline. this was not a case unlike some other situations where he tried to overly delay it. there was no such request and the prosecutors even noted in open court today near the end after the big news of the conviction, they said, well, thet is a normer briefing time. they'll have two weeks to file motions and then july 11th there will be a sentening hearing. prosecutors may request jail time. the defense will be afforded its chance to argue about that. we expect them to completely oppose any punishment, sanction, and especially jail time. that is the state of play. our whole panel is still here with us. alex wagner having now discussed for a few moments the country and politics and politicians, i want to return back to why this is such a newsworthy day and discuss the substance. we got the news of the conviction, and we also learned a little bit about how the jury got here. that's not automatic. there are juries that meet for long periods of time or ask questions, and as andrew will tell you, are more concerning than they are enlightening. you have a four-week trial about stealing and jow a question on the second day regarding how someone was sworn in or some other thing, you say did they follow this at all? here, the questions we got, which i want to return to with you, showed an immediate grasp of the plot. there was a catch and kill scheme with a tabloid. it was secret. it was so secret that the enquirer, which is not full of easily shocked snowflake employees, if you ever look through the enquirer, agreed early on, none of their employees were going to find out. it was off the books of the enquirer, off the books of the trump campaign. as far as the fec and sdny were concerned, it was off the books because they were hiding it. i'm curious what you think about how this jury zeroed in on that with questions, asked about the evidentiary standard and came back today and said guilty. >> as an avid student in telephone law school, i was told many times don't read too much into whatever the jury's requests are, but the fact they wanted a reread of the transcript where david pecker is telling michael cohen, i cannot take a reimbursement for this karen mcdougal hush money because it's a violation of campaign finance laws. i don't want it, and michael cohen is very, very angry about it. he says the boss is going to be super mad. the fact they wanted to hear again the way in which david pecker understood that what was going down was a violation of the law, to me said okay, they're digging in deep into the essence of this. each thing they asked for what was trump's specific role in the conspiracy. you could see, we weren't supposed to read too much into it, but we did. that they were -- they wanted to know what trump was doing, how culpable he was, and how the other collaborators in the plot recognized what they were doing was against the law. and you know, lindsey graham, as claire mccaskill said, this is going to be overturned on appeal. i do not know about the appeals process, but i would assume if you have a verdict sheet like the one we just looked at where every single box is checked guilty on 34 felony counts, man, it's a stretch to assume this is going to get overturned on appeal. >> same point to andrew with the fact that many people will tune in more tonight, tomorrow, and in the coming days. we hear all about low information citizens, and we hear all about people who aren't following things closely. as is their right to live their life. a lot of people are still thinking about prices andflation and what they're going to do this summer. that's life. this is a headline, we had this up earlier, "the new york times," "washington post," usa today, international media, all across the internet and social media. in a world and a country where often people are working off different facts, the unifying fact is he was convicted. there are people complaining about that, but we're not seeing a disinformation campaign to pretend he wasn't. people have to deal with this. how much does the story that was told and people's ability to grasp it matter? >> i'm going to go back to something you were saying because it was so, i think, dead on and moving. and i think it's the important point in many ways about what's going on. first, i think the idea that the republicans are going to run on this idea of being dismissive of jurors is those are citizens. the idea that this is not a verdict from elites, this is a verdict from everyday people. and that is the way our system works. it's not the high who are doing this. it is not joe biden that's doing this. and i think when you think about the big picture of what we're seeing today, you could almost encapsulate the problem in this country and the election we're facing by seeing alvin bragg on one side and donald trump on the other. and you have a rich, white man saying i am grievanced. the system doesn't work for me when this system almost only works for him. i mean, that is the person who is the prototypical person who doesn't have a problem. saying basically, ignore what citizens think. and on this other side, you have alvin bragg, and i was struck by something he said when he was asked after he made his statement, the question to him was, essentially how does it feel, what is your comment about being attacked by donald trump? about you and your family being attacked. what do you have to say? and he said, i have no comment. that is high road and low road. and so you had really just sort of, i think, two americas. and the fact it is alvin bragg, the first black d.a. in manhattan, upholding the law and saying i did my job. going back to thomas dewey and a professional system, and saying, this is not a deep state. this is what the justice system is. it seems to me that you just have the embodiment of two americas. >> and the thing is that donald trump existed in a new york where mr. morganthol and in a n where alvin bragg's predecessors let him and his father get away with everything from tax evasion to all manner of misdeeds and he went unscathed throughout his life. this is a man who grew up with a supposedly law and order mentality who ran in 2016 on the theme, quote, lock her up. the idea that hillary clinton must be thrown in prison and promising to do that if he were president. lock her up. if he were inside the republican convention, as i was, and heard the guttural nature, it was frightening. to stand there and listen to the rage and hatred that his fans had for this woman they would never meet, that they do not know. the idea that she must be subjected not just to the criminal justice system, but to a blog. not put her on trial, not try her for a crime, not subject her to criminal justice. go past that and lock her up. that was his theme. so donald trump is the last person in the world who has any right, who has any legitimacy questioning a justice system that as you said, andrew, served him and his family. the one time that man paid taxes is when he worked for this company that we work for, when he got a w-2 like the ones we get from here. other than that that man has never lived under the law. he has never followed the law and he has gotten away with stealing classified documents, with a judge covering for him. with the supreme court not just covering for him, but flying an upside down flag. in his favor and then refusing to get off the case. he has supreme court members essentially in his pocket. he has a whole political party in his pocket and a cold. this is not someone who can, at all, complain that the criminal justice system is cruel to him. the person who has the longest sentence for attempting to help him in the coup is the brown guy from florida who got 22 years. other people who beat up police, and committed all kinds of mayhem got far less. and someone who wasn't even there, the guy who was the head of the proud boys has 22 years. so donald trump has led to conspiracies in the past and gotten away with them. in this case he did a conspiracy that michael cohen went to jail for, so he has allowed underlings to pay for his crimes his whole life. this is the one time he has actually had to be subjected to the same criminal justice system. >> when we look at the reactions here, we are talking about how people understand the process and whether they've seen themselves on one side or we are all subject to it. it is a cliche. p.j. o'rourke and others have said conservatives only become liberal when they are arrested. and we have heard some of that. suddenly you're talking about the standard for a search and whether the search was aggressive and what the rules are. how the civil liberties work. some of what the panel has described his even worse than that because it is not just traditional civil libertarianism, which you do see sometimes authentically on the left and far right. it is actually worse. it is autocratic. it is the abuse of these terms for oppression and suppression and not for the other side. so, chris hayes has rejoined us as we approach the 8:00 p.m. hour. we are looking today at something that has never happened before. something that many people historically have seen as a dividing line. the speaker of the house was all the way up and when he was convicted he went all the way down. republicans were done with him. george santos was a less important republican. when democrats are rod blagojevich, people forget he was a popular governor before he was on the apprentice and convicted and ultimately pardoned by trump, because of course he was. traditionally these are disqualifying events. we are not here to tell the nation how to respond, but i am curious why you think that is important to remember. because a jury of his peers convicted him on all counts today. >> traditionally i think you have seen political leaders and voters make a difference between charges, a trial and conviction, which i think makes sense. there have been people who face trials and have not been convicted and voters say okay. menendez is standing for a second trial. he was not convicted the first time. the conviction usually in the normal course of things spells the end. both, i think, for voters judgment and the judgment of fellow politicals. this could be a trite trope, but let's imagine the democratic presidential nominee was just convicted of 34 felonies. i mean, it is comical because in what universe is that happening? i was sitting at this desk when a lifelong republican career lawyer and a special counsel report in which he said the sitting president should not be prosecuted for the classified information that he had to. referred disparagingly to his memory and his age and there was a full freak out in democratic circles. there were all peds about maybe by then should leave the ticket. think about what would be happening in the democratic party and the media conversation and op-ed pages and all the places with the pundits if the democratic nominee had 34 -- >> make it barack obama. >> yes, it would be a done deal. it is impossible to conceive. it is impossible. we have gone so far down this road. they have made a bet. the republican party and it is this. they understood one thing. the nature of the polarized landscape we live in is that if they collectively do everything together, they create a floor for how bad it can get and they are going to do that no matter what he does and what he is found guilty of. >> katie phang. >> so, it is more of a basement, actually. i don't think it is a floor that was created here. the interesting thing, one thing that cannot be changed regardless of how they debase themselves is the law. there are legal standards that apply in what we do. there is a rule of law that applies and because of that you cannot manipulate that. i think that is one of the biggest takeaways of what we saw over the past six weeks. the rule of law survived. the institution, albeit under attack, has survived. the amazing thing that i saw that i have seen every time i have been in a trial, in a jury trial specifically, was the answer from the foreperson. whether it is what you want as a prosecutor or a defense attorney, when the foreperson says we the jury have a verdict. there is no distinction. there is not the foreperson saying i, so and so, who lives in this area of new york and does this for a living, i have a verdict. it is we the jury have a verdict and because of that, that reinforces the idea that we have a lot of pessimism often when we go into our analysis, especially in such a critical time, yet there has to be optimism that these institutions can survive. they can survive the attacks. >> the institutions can survive and flourish. we were looking at these court sketches and they have all of the people who dealt with this and some of them have the outlines of the jurors with their faces blurred out because it is their decision as citizens whether they want to engage publicly or not. the jury forms on the screen were signed anonymously, but transparently because the defendant and his team are afforded rights. the public is observing. journalists are in the room and we have been going through all of that up through tonight where we had these felony convictions of donald j. trump. someone who has been down there watching this is lisa rubin and i can say nicole and rachel maddow and the rest of the team are about to rejoin our coverage, but we want to get one more update from lisa before that. >> reporter: i am glad to provide it. being in the courtroom today for the gravity of the verdict, the one thing that i really kept thinking about, and this is my third trump jury verdict in the last 12 months. one person i kept thinking about is someone we barely talked about tonight and that is stormy daniels. because while her story was not integral to the crime, it was, as josh steinglass said, messy and cringeworthy. she was the motive and i kept thinking about the fact that despite the fact that susan necheles tried to bring out this nuts and defense we have seen again and again in our culture. it did not work. this jury believed an adult film star and they believed her story was real enough that donald trump did not want anyone to know about her and their sexual encounter. that in itself is revelatory. it is a reflection of the fact that in 2024, you can be a person that does something that many of us might consider embarrassing for a living and yet you can be believed enough along with somebody who pled guilty to multiple felonies. the two of you can be believed enough along with other people including many of trump's acolytes to help bring him down on 34 felony charges tonight