the criminal trial of former president donald trump. i m rachel maddow. i m here with my colleagues stephanie ruhle and jen psaki and alex wagner and chris hayes. in a courtroom in downtown manhattan just after 5:00 eastern time this evening the foreperson of the jury rose and delivered the jury s unanimous verdict, donald trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election. it s a scheme that was described by the prosecution in their summation as something that may very well have been the reason that donald trump won the 2016 election. as of tonight it is officially a criminal scheme. he has been convicted on 34 counts. with those convictions we enter uncharted territory as a country. for the first time a president has been criminally convicted, and for the first time one of our two main political parties is about to nominate that same man for president after he has been convicted of 34 felonies. that is wher
store you are watching our live continuing special coverage of today s unanimous guilty on all counts verdict. in the criminal trial of former president donald trump. i am rachel maddow, i m here with my colleague, stephanie ruhle and jen psaki and alex wagner and chris hayes, in a courtroom in downtown manhattan, just after 5:00 eastern time this evening, a foreperson of the journey rose and delivered the jury unanimous , guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal the scheme to correct the 2016 election. the scheme that was described by the prosecution in their summation as something that may very well have been the reason that donald trump won the 2016 election. as of tonight, it is official a criminal scheme, he has been convicted on 34 counts. with those convictions, we enter uncharted territory as a country, for the first time, a president has criminally convicted and for the first time for one of our two main political parties is about to
School that increased their earning potential. she also the secretary talked about the ability for women to be able to plan and balance families and careers saying this of course in a congressional hearing. republican senator tim scott taking some exception to her framing saying to him it felt callous to talk about abortion rights in the context of the labor force. let me bring in now nbc news digital senior white house correspondent shannon pettypiece. tell us more about this. it was i think a window into the treasury secretary s view on something that is not typically an economist s purview. right, and i should note this wasn t a hearing on abortion or the effects of abortion on the economy. this was a hearing on a financial report about the u.s. economy. she was specifically asked about this, and yeah, you could hear those remarks, her giving this economic rundown of the different effects throughout the economy that this could have, primarily on women s work force
Stay on the ballot to run again. she didn t deny any of this, but she said she didn t remember it. does this new proof change anything in that case? so, if we re talking about whether or not green is susceptible of perjury charges in this georgia state proceeding, that s really not gonna happen here. to successfully prosecute perjury, you have to have a precise matchup between the question and the answer. that s something that lawyers have to do very skillfully. this wasn t a hearing that was about perjury. it was about a listening information to decide whether she could stay on the ballot? and here again, if the hearing officer, the administrative law judge and ultimately, georgia secretary of state, brad raffensperger, if they are inclined to keep her on the ballot, i think it will be easy for them based on that hearing to say that the plaintiffs in that case, georgia voters, didn t meet their burden of proof of showing that she was involved in misconduct. it s because she used the
Question and the answer. that s something that lawyers have to do very skillfully. this wasn t a hearing that was about perjury. it was about a listening information to decide whether she could stay on the ballot? and here again, if the hearing officer, the administrative law judge and ultimately, georgia secretary of state, brad raffensperger, if they are inclined to keep her on the ballot, i think it will be easy for them based on that hearing to say that the plaintiffs in that case, georgia voters, didn t meet their burden of proof of showing that she was involved in misconduct. it s because she used these very disingenuous repeated answers, saying that she didn t remember anything. in terms of that proceeding, probably not a lot of movement towards taking her off the ballot. but again, and back to neal s point, what happens here, is there becomes a basis for people to be subpoenaed. and you see in these text in these non responsive answers, something that makes it legitimately poss