Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: For the first time a former president has been convicted
Speaker 1: of felony crimes, a New York jury found Donald Trump
Speaker 1: guilty of thirty four felony counts of falsifying business records
Speaker 1: to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actress
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels in a scheme to illegally influence the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election. After the verdict, Trump repeated his familiar complaints
Speaker 1: about the case.
Speaker 2: This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by
Speaker 2: a conflicted judge who was corrupted. It's a rigged trial
Speaker 2: and disgrace. They wouldn't give us a venue change. We
Speaker 2: were at five or six percent in this district, in
Speaker 2: this area. This was a rigged, disgraceful trial that the
Speaker 2: real verdict is going to be the people.
Speaker 1: Judge Wan Mreshawn will sentence Trump on July eleventh. That's
Speaker 1: just days before the July fifteenth Republic and National Convention,
Speaker 1: where the party is set to officially select Trump as
Speaker 1: its presidential nominee for the November fifth election. Joining me
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, who covered the trial
Speaker 1: from start to finish, Eric, what was the reaction Trump's
Speaker 1: reaction in the courtroom when this verdict was read.
Speaker 3: He did not give much reaction at all, other than
Speaker 3: to have a very stern look on his face, sort
Speaker 3: of a grimace. You know. You could tell from some
Speaker 3: of his comments that he seemed to expect this verdict,
Speaker 3: So he didn't seem to have an expression of surprise
Speaker 3: or anything like that, but he did have a very
Speaker 3: stern look on his face. When he eventually left the
Speaker 3: courtroom with his entourage. He did not glance at the
Speaker 3: many members of the price who were sitting in the courtroom,
Speaker 3: as he has done so many times during this trial,
Speaker 3: and then he went out to make his remarks. So
Speaker 3: there wasn't much of a reaction at all. And actually
Speaker 3: the judge said before the jury came out he did
Speaker 3: not want to hear or see any reaction from anyone
Speaker 3: in the courtroom, including trumped over with it be included
Speaker 3: in that, So there really wasn't much reaction at all.
Speaker 3: It was just the sound of everyone typing away on
Speaker 3: their laptop and that was it.
Speaker 1: It seemed as if the judge said the jury was
Speaker 1: going to go home at four thirty. Then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden we heard a verdict. Was everyone shocked that
Speaker 1: a verdict was coming in so fast?
Speaker 3: I would say everyone was taken by surprise, specifically because
Speaker 3: the judge did say he called everyone into the courtroom,
Speaker 3: including the parties and their lawyers, all oppressed, had them seated,
Speaker 3: and said it's four fifteen. Him going to be sending
Speaker 3: the jury home. The end time was four thirty. There
Speaker 3: was the option he would give the jury to stay
Speaker 3: until six if they wanted, but it was unclear that
Speaker 3: had ever been suggested to them. He just said he
Speaker 3: was sending them home. So he stepped away and then
Speaker 3: came back a few minutes later and he said, actually
Speaker 3: have a note from the jury and they have a verdict.
Speaker 3: So everyone clearly was surprised, their sort of gaps in
Speaker 3: the courtroom, Everyone obviously was mostly pressed, was you know,
Speaker 3: rushing to get the news out? And then the judge
Speaker 3: said that the jury needed an extra thirty minutes to
Speaker 3: fill out the verdict sheet, which, to be honest, made
Speaker 3: me wonder if it wasn't a very complicated verdict sheet.
Speaker 3: But everyone just waited and they eventually came out and
Speaker 3: read out the verdict.
Speaker 1: So, Eric, you sat through the trial, what do you
Speaker 1: think was the strongest piece of evidence in the case.
Speaker 3: You know, I have to say that the testimony of
Speaker 3: the government star witness Michael Cohen had to have had
Speaker 3: a huge effect on the jury, even though he was
Speaker 3: part of the conspiracy, and the judge said that they
Speaker 3: couldn't as a result of that, they couldn't find Trump
Speaker 3: guilty based only on Michael Cohen's words, but had to
Speaker 3: take it into context of all the other testimony and
Speaker 3: all the other evidence, and which really did back up
Speaker 3: a lot of what Michael Cohen said, and he has
Speaker 3: the long history of twisting the truth that was all
Speaker 3: brought out at the trial. The defense wanted to undermine
Speaker 3: his credibility at every step, but when it came to
Speaker 3: the words that he was saying about Trump and his
Speaker 3: interactions with his former boss around the time when he
Speaker 3: was a devoted Trump employee, you know, his fixer, his lawyer,
Speaker 3: that the jury clearly accepted the things that he was
Speaker 3: saying about these interactions with these you know, with the
Speaker 3: hush money payment, the scheme that was hatched to Trump
Speaker 3: Tower in twenty fifteen, with the publisher of the National inquirer.
Speaker 3: I know all of these details that he gave about
Speaker 3: the efforts to suppress negative stories about his Trump's conduct
Speaker 3: with women before the twenty sixteen election, it must have
Speaker 3: rang true with the jury and they accepted it.
Speaker 1: So now when we look back, I'll put you on
Speaker 1: the spot for a second. It seemed to me the
Speaker 1: jury was starting from you know, ground zero when they
Speaker 1: asked the judge to start with reading readbacks of David Pecker.
Speaker 1: Then they seemed to go fast forward. So I mean,
Speaker 1: what do you think they were looking at there?
Speaker 3: Well, my theory, which I guess as will never know,
Speaker 3: but my theory was that all of the counts, thirty
Speaker 3: four counts, they were all very similar and they all
Speaker 3: related to the same documents types of documents. But really
Speaker 3: they all hinged on one thing. Was there a conspiracy
Speaker 3: to you know, pay hush money to suppress these stories,
Speaker 3: because as we know, the money that was paid ultimately
Speaker 3: violated election law. They were there were criminal payments that
Speaker 3: supported presidential campaign by benefiting a campaign, and then of
Speaker 3: course the documents were falsified to sort of cover that trail.
Speaker 3: So they really, it seemed like they wanted to know,
Speaker 3: was this conspiracy real, How was it hatched? How did
Speaker 3: they operate under the conspiracy? So they wanted to hear
Speaker 3: Peckers and Cohen's testimony about that twenty five minute meeting
Speaker 3: at Trump Tower in August twenty fifteen. They wanted to
Speaker 3: hear again exactly what they said about it and what
Speaker 3: their understandings were about it. And then they wanted to
Speaker 3: hear what Pecker said about, you know, about paying Karen McDougal,
Speaker 3: the former Playboy model, and also Pecker telling Trump that
Speaker 3: he should pay to get the Stormy Daniel's story out
Speaker 3: of the press if he could could do that. And
Speaker 3: so it seemed like they wanted to see how Pecker
Speaker 3: operated under this disagreement, how he thought it worked. So
Speaker 3: if they went back to the to the deliberation room
Speaker 3: after hearing all that again and said, well, you know,
Speaker 3: this conspiracy is real, and so everything else just sort
Speaker 3: of fell into place. You know, that's that's my theory. Well,
Speaker 3: we may never know that's true.
Speaker 1: I want to just pick up on that for a second.
Speaker 1: The jury was anonymous a lot of times. After a
Speaker 1: jury verdict comes in, you know, you'll as a reporter,
Speaker 1: you'll see the jurors come out, and you can grab
Speaker 1: them and ask them questions about, you know, how'd you
Speaker 1: come to this decision, et cetera. These jurors, what happened?
Speaker 1: They just disappeared after the verdict.
Speaker 3: I don't know what they did after their verdict because
Speaker 3: I was stuck in the courtroom as they were. I
Speaker 3: think all escorted out. But I can tell you that
Speaker 3: before the judge dismissed the jury, he did tell them
Speaker 3: that the strict rules that they've been operating on the
Speaker 3: preventing them from speaking to the press or anyone else
Speaker 3: about the trial, are officially lifted, and so he said
Speaker 3: that they were free to talk to people if they
Speaker 3: want to. I think it was made crystal clearer to
Speaker 3: this jury as a result of the anonymous nature of it.
Speaker 3: How unusual that that is, that it was all to
Speaker 3: protect their safety. So I think it's a safe guest
Speaker 3: that a lot of these jurors probably are going to
Speaker 3: heap that concern, that warning and try to keep keep
Speaker 3: themselves secret. But I also wouldn't be surprised if one
Speaker 3: or two of them, you know, jump into the spotlight here.
Speaker 3: You can imagine that that there would be some temptation
Speaker 3: there to the spotlight.
Speaker 1: So now the judge set a sentencing date already, and
Speaker 1: it's sort of in line with what would normally happen
Speaker 1: with someone convicted of a felony about a month from.
Speaker 3: Now, right right, And a lot of people were asking me,
Speaker 3: and I'm sure everyone was asking, you know, do you
Speaker 3: think that he's going to get sentenced right away or
Speaker 3: you know what. People were full on speculating that he
Speaker 3: wouldn't be sentenced until after the election and things like that.
Speaker 3: I never the judge never really gave a hint that
Speaker 3: he was the kind of judge who would do that.
Speaker 3: He really did try to treat Trump like any other
Speaker 3: defendant to the best of his ability, given the special
Speaker 3: circumstances with a secret service there and everything like that.
Speaker 3: But you'll recall during the trial, Mershon, Judge Marshan threatens
Speaker 3: to throw Trump behind bars during the trial for violating
Speaker 3: that gag order preventing Trump from speaking publicly about the
Speaker 3: jury or the witnesses. So after he violated that twice
Speaker 3: or you know, through multiple violations, you know, found a
Speaker 3: contempt twice, the judge said, I don't care, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry about your secret service and everything else. I
Speaker 3: know it would be a big problem for everyone in
Speaker 3: a big inconvenience, but I will put you in jail
Speaker 3: if you do this one more time. So you know,
Speaker 3: Trump didn't do it again, so the judges, I think
Speaker 3: it doesn't surprise me that he would put a sentencing
Speaker 3: date on the calendar like anyone else.
Speaker 1: And the district attorney at the press conference would not
Speaker 1: say whether or not the prosecutors are going to ask
Speaker 1: for prison time or not. He said, read it in
Speaker 1: our filings. We're going to do that the way we
Speaker 1: do everything else. Eric, I understand that the judge got
Speaker 1: angry at Todd Blanche after the verdict came in when
Speaker 1: he made a motion to throw out the verdict and
Speaker 1: said something about Michael Cohen not being credible and how
Speaker 1: the jury couldn't base their decision on Michael Cohen.
Speaker 3: Right. Blanche had said something along the lines of there's
Speaker 3: no way that the jury could have come to a
Speaker 3: conclusion this quickly without relying improperly on Michael Cohen's testimony.
Speaker 3: The judge just very quickly rejected that. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: exactly what specifically about the request got the judge to
Speaker 3: Lady's voice a little bit but I mean, the judge
Speaker 3: got impatient with Todd Blanch multiple times during the trial,
Speaker 3: and you know, the the lawyers are are making arguments
Speaker 3: with Trump sitting there, Trump is going to expect them
Speaker 3: to say something, to do something on the fly, and
Speaker 3: the way they're just you know, they're they're doing what
Speaker 3: their client watched them to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think probably a lot of what we saw
Speaker 1: at the trial was because Trump was there and the
Speaker 1: lawyers had to do certain things, perhaps even bringing in
Speaker 1: Robert Costello, who was a defense witness that sort of
Speaker 1: backfired on the defense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was I will have to try to get
Speaker 3: an interview with Lance soon and maybe ask him if you'll,
Speaker 3: you know, say what he thinks about that that performance.
Speaker 3: But Costello clearly caused a bit of of a scene,
Speaker 3: a major scene, and that was their only, really Trump's
Speaker 3: only witness on the defense, So it did kind of backfire. Clearly,
Speaker 3: the jury didn't take too seriously anything that he said, and.
Speaker 1: It seemed like there were a couple of instances where
Speaker 1: Judge Muschaw maybe lost his temper, but for the most part,
Speaker 1: and considering the pressure that he was under, the constant
Speaker 1: pressure and the constant criticism of Donald Trump outside the courtroom,
Speaker 1: talking about the fact that the judge was biased just
Speaker 1: about every day. I think he was pretty even keeled,
Speaker 1: wasn't he during the trial? From what I understand, Yeah.
Speaker 3: One he I would say, the word unflappable comes to mind,
Speaker 3: which is why when the judge really sort of lost
Speaker 3: it with that Robert Costello, that witness really sort of
Speaker 3: shocked everyone. But he has not, you know, he hasn't
Speaker 3: raised his voice at Trump, which for example we saw
Speaker 3: with Judge Lewis Kaplan and the Eugene Carroll trial. You know,
Speaker 3: he just was very even tempered for the most part
Speaker 3: and did not seem to take anything personally at least
Speaker 3: not that we saw regarding the things that Trump was
Speaker 3: saying about him every day right off bide the corner door.
Speaker 3: You know, he was just focused on protecting the safety
Speaker 3: of the jurors and the witnesses. But clearly there will
Speaker 3: be some people angry with the judge here as well.
Speaker 3: We've already seen that.
Speaker 1: You're listening to a special edition of The Bloomberg Lawn Show.
Speaker 1: A historic verdict. A New York jury found Donald Trump
Speaker 1: guilty of thirty four felony counts of falsifying business records
Speaker 1: to conceal the hush money payment too adult film actress
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels to illegally influence the twenty sixteen election. Joining
Speaker 1: us now is Joshua nef Talis, former federal prosecutor partner
Speaker 1: at Palace. Josh, first of all, just what's your general
Speaker 1: reaction to the fact that this verdict came in all
Speaker 1: guilty counts and really within two days.
Speaker 4: So, I mean, it's obviously historic, but I don't think
Speaker 4: it's necessarily surprising when a jury comes back this quickly.
Speaker 4: When I when I saw the sort of the news
Speaker 4: flash that there was a verdict, that's it's got to
Speaker 4: be a guilty vertical that comes out quickly. So, I mean,
Speaker 4: kudos to the government from proving its case.
Speaker 1: And Josh, there was a lot of talk from the
Speaker 1: very beginning about how, you know, this case was concocted
Speaker 1: to be a felony when it should have been misdemeanors,
Speaker 1: and how the government sort of made this into a felony.
Speaker 1: I mean, was it a difficult case to prove?
Speaker 4: I mean, it was actually a relatively simple case and
Speaker 4: it was basically about lying on paper, right that's what
Speaker 4: the case is about. The now, the motive and the
Speaker 4: story required telling why he did it and why he
Speaker 4: knew what he was doing was wrong. But I think it,
Speaker 4: you know, overall, the government it was a strategically kind
Speaker 4: of brilliant They took a very complicated fact pattern and
Speaker 4: turn into a pretty simple felony story.
Speaker 1: How much do you think the testimony of Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: I mean Michael Cohen. Before the case was brought, and
Speaker 1: you know, there was a lot of talk about how
Speaker 1: can you bring a case based on the testimony of
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen? Explain how the prosecutors did that and still
Speaker 1: got a conviction.
Speaker 4: So I was I was listening to your conversations, your
Speaker 4: prior guests, and I think and a couple of things
Speaker 4: occurred to me, which about Michael Cohen. The first is
Speaker 4: the difference between state and federal law is if this
Speaker 4: were a federal court, a jury could convict stolely based
Speaker 4: on the testimony of Michael Cohen, which is which is
Speaker 4: It's an interesting difference. And I think the since you
Speaker 4: had to have corroboration about Michael Cohen, my read of
Speaker 4: what the jury was asking for, you had asked the
Speaker 4: prior death. You know, what were their various requests to readback?
Speaker 4: I think they were looking for corroboration. You know what
Speaker 4: happened at Trump Power, you know, did what Michael Cohen
Speaker 4: said line up with the other witnesses? And I think
Speaker 4: that's obviously why God packed Michael Collins a heavily in
Speaker 4: his closing argument. So he was certainly a key witness.
Speaker 4: And I think, you know, my read is that the
Speaker 4: jury credited him. You know, that's not to say Michael
Speaker 4: Cohen is a perfect witness. He's definitely not. He's obviously lied,
Speaker 4: he's admitted to it, and he's sort of got more
Speaker 4: baggage than the average cooperating witness. But I think in
Speaker 4: the end, obviously he delivered for the government.
Speaker 1: You know, looking at the case, and as I was
Speaker 1: talking with Eric Larson, the defense presented really one witness.
Speaker 1: The first witness was about records, so they presented Bob Costello,
Speaker 1: which seemed to backfire on them. As a defense attorney,
Speaker 1: what else do you think they could have done to
Speaker 1: make their case stronger.
Speaker 4: You know, when the defense puts on a case, it's
Speaker 4: very risky because there's one school of thought that says
Speaker 4: they should have done nothing right, which is just get
Speaker 4: up there and say the government didn't meet its burden.
Speaker 4: But since they called effectively one substance of witness that imploded,
Speaker 4: then all of a sudden, they've taken on a burden
Speaker 4: of trying to prove something. And every Jura was sitting
Speaker 4: there wondering, Wait, that's all they had to show for it.
Speaker 4: They didn't have to do anything, but they had one
Speaker 4: with us.
Speaker 5: And I.
Speaker 4: Think it's obviously very hard to second get people, but
Speaker 4: you have to wonder whether in the end it was
Speaker 4: really worth putting this guy on the stand.
Speaker 1: In the closing arguments, the main thing was the attack
Speaker 1: on Michael Cohen. Also that Stormy Daniels was lying. How
Speaker 1: big a mistake was that for the defense to say
Speaker 1: that Stormy Daniels was lying about the sexual incident with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump when it seems like just about everybody accepts
Speaker 1: that that's the truth. Was it a bad move to
Speaker 1: start out that way in opening statements and say she's
Speaker 1: lying about that, and then to close with that too.
Speaker 4: I agree with you. I mean, I think like everybody
Speaker 4: has to believe that that happened even before she testified,
Speaker 4: and that must have been a client driven strategy, which
Speaker 4: is to deny the fact that the encounter at all.
Speaker 4: But once again, you take on that bird and the
Speaker 4: jury sitting there wondering, you know, he's claiming, the President's
Speaker 4: claiming that the stormy Daniels that you didn't happen. So
Speaker 4: why would we believe the fact that he didn't pay
Speaker 4: it off? In the end, it would have been a
Speaker 4: little simpler to say, like, yeah, this may have happened.
Speaker 4: That doesn't mean he had committed a crime. But adult
Speaker 4: three isn't you know, is one thing, But that doesn't
Speaker 4: mean he committed the crimes of the cutis charged.
Speaker 1: What do you do when you take on a client
Speaker 1: like Donald Trump, Because it seems like a lot of
Speaker 1: the decisions that the defense made were made because they
Speaker 1: were playing not only to the jury, but they were
Speaker 1: also having to play to Donald Trump and what he wanted.
Speaker 4: You know, I think that that Todd and Amiel and
Speaker 4: Susan did a great job I mean with what was
Speaker 4: The facts were what they were, and they did the
Speaker 4: best they could. My guess is that had he had
Speaker 4: different lawyers, less skilled lawyers, it would have been a
Speaker 4: circus and they were able to control him in a
Speaker 4: way that that other lawyers could not have. That's not
Speaker 4: to say that he was an easy client or that
Speaker 4: the result they would have been different, But I think
Speaker 4: that if there had been less strong lawyers on the
Speaker 4: defense side, they would have probably done more of what
Speaker 4: Donald Trump wanted, which would have resulted instead of more
Speaker 4: of the outbursts that was talking about with the judge,
Speaker 4: where defense layer says one thing and the judge says,
Speaker 4: sit down, not in my courtroom.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has been before about three I think New
Speaker 1: York judges so far. There was Judge and Goron in
Speaker 1: the civil case, and then Judge Lewis Caplan in the
Speaker 1: Egen Carroll case, and now Judge one Marshaan. I think
Speaker 1: there's one other that I'm leaving out, but all those
Speaker 1: judges were different. It seemed like Judge and Gourn was
Speaker 1: a little looser, Judge Caplan was so strict, and then
Speaker 1: you had Judge Mrshawn, who was somewhere in between.
Speaker 4: I mean, they were all different postors.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: A criminal case is different, there are different rules in
Speaker 4: each one. But I think the pressure under each of
Speaker 4: these judges was extreme, and that.
Speaker 5: You have.
Speaker 4: Unbelievable press sort of attention. You have the president of
Speaker 4: the United States, a former president, on trial. You want
Speaker 4: to make sure that he gets a fair trial, and
Speaker 4: you have a difficult client. Who's who's pushing the envelope.
Speaker 4: I think that the judge did an excellent job. He
Speaker 4: got this trial in. He didn't lose the jury, meaning
Speaker 4: like the jurors were able to reach a verdict. There
Speaker 4: obviously will be an appeal, but he was able to
Speaker 4: contain what could have been a circus and made it,
Speaker 4: you know, I think a model of what everyone wanted,
Speaker 4: which is the president was held to account, whether you know,
Speaker 4: travel which way you wanted to come out. But a
Speaker 4: trial occurred and a jury reached a verdict, which was
Speaker 4: the goal.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of controversy from the Trump side
Speaker 1: about the gag order that the judge put on Trump
Speaker 1: as far as witnesses in the case. Does that gag
Speaker 1: order last through the sentencing?
Speaker 4: No, I don't know. My guess is that at this
Speaker 4: point the gag order falls away. I haven't robbed the
Speaker 4: gag order with that in mind, but really it really
Speaker 4: was designed not to intimidate witnesses or to infect the journey.
Speaker 4: Now that now that the trial's over, there's less of
Speaker 4: the need for it. Obviously, he doesn't want to bate
Speaker 4: the judge. I mean again, the judge is the one
Speaker 4: of sentencing him, so he starts the mouse off on
Speaker 4: Twitter or attack the judge. Then the person who's going
Speaker 4: to be the ultimate decision maker on the sentence is
Speaker 4: obviously going to sort of consciously or unconsciously take that
Speaker 4: into account.
Speaker 1: The judge has set a sentencing date for July eleventh,
Speaker 1: which is pretty much along the lines of when you'd
Speaker 1: set a sentencing date for anyone who is convicted of
Speaker 1: a felony and the district attorney wouldn't say whether or
Speaker 1: not they were going to seek prison time. I mean,
Speaker 1: what are the chances that Donald Trump will be sentenced
Speaker 1: to prison time? Remote?
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm almost positive if he'll get prison time, you are, yeah,
Speaker 4: The question is whether or when he will serve it.
Speaker 4: I think the judge will impose a sentence I don't
Speaker 4: know how long, but will impose prison time. There will
Speaker 4: then be a series of appeals that will go on
Speaker 4: for some time, and I doubt he will be remanded
Speaker 4: during that time period. But I think sort of the
Speaker 4: principle that no one is above the law sort of
Speaker 4: would dictate that you get a prison sentence. That doesn't
Speaker 4: mean he's going to jail for the rest of his life.
Speaker 4: You know that the sentence will be what it is.
Speaker 4: But I think that this judges may clearly prepared to
Speaker 4: punish mister Trump.
Speaker 1: Even though I mean, he's not above the law. But
Speaker 1: it's his first time, you know, being convicted of anything.
Speaker 1: He's seventy seven years old. Also take into account that
Speaker 1: I'm not sure, and the judge mentioned this during the trial,
Speaker 1: how the Secret Service would work out in prison. Don't
Speaker 1: you think that those things might interfere with a prison sentence? Mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to convince you play devil's advocate.
Speaker 4: I agree that it's a tough call. I think the
Speaker 4: judge may clear and the Secret Service made clear that
Speaker 4: they could deal with this as awkward as it would be.
Speaker 4: That's thought to say, this is going to be a
Speaker 4: long sentence necessarily, but there is a certain symbolism to it,
Speaker 4: which is, if you don't send someone to jail for
Speaker 4: a felony, what's the point of prosecuting.
Speaker 1: I'll leave it at that and we'll find it, I guess.
Speaker 1: On July eleven, Thanks so much. Josh that's former federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor Joshua Neptalis. You're listening to a special edition of
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show. We're discussing a New York jury
Speaker 1: this afternoon finding Donald Trump guilty of thirty four felony
Speaker 1: counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money
Speaker 1: payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in a scheme
Speaker 1: to illegally influence the twenty sixteen election. Joining me now
Speaker 1: is former federal Prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner McCarter and
Speaker 1: English Bob. I'm asking everybody, what's your first reaction to
Speaker 1: hearing that this jury came back with thirty four guilty counts.
Speaker 5: Well, it was unquestionably a historic moment for this country.
Speaker 5: The first former US president charged with a crime, and
Speaker 5: now it convicted felon. I was not so much surprised
Speaker 5: by the verdict, but I was surprised by the swiftness
Speaker 5: by which this jury came to their conclusion. This was
Speaker 5: a somewhat complicated case in terms of the jury charge.
Speaker 5: It was a layered crime in the sense that jurys
Speaker 5: had to find first that there was a falsification of
Speaker 5: business records, and then that it was done to commit
Speaker 5: some other crime, which turned this from a misdemeanor into
Speaker 5: a felony. In this case, the other crime was to
Speaker 5: affect the election in some illegal way. And so, for
Speaker 5: given all the complexities and the jury instructions and the evidence,
Speaker 5: I think it was rather shocking that they came back
Speaker 5: with a verdict unanimous on all thirty four counts in
Speaker 5: only a day and a half of deliberation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the jury instructions fifty pages. They were very complex,
Speaker 1: and unlike in federal courts, I mean, the jurors can't
Speaker 1: take copies of the instructions back with them, So it
Speaker 1: is kind of amazing that they were able to figure
Speaker 1: it all out because it was complex. I mean, you
Speaker 1: had two parts of it that had to be beyond
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt, but then you have the unlawful means,
Speaker 1: which could have been any of three different things.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and often in these cases, even when jurors may
Speaker 5: be inclined to convict, they methodically go through all of
Speaker 5: the evidence, sort of weighing each count separately, looking at
Speaker 5: all the evidence that is there presented by the prosecution,
Speaker 5: considering the defense and it was surprising that in a
Speaker 5: case with this level of complexity the verdict came back
Speaker 5: so quickly. What it does signal is that there really
Speaker 5: was no doubt in the minds of these jurors as
Speaker 5: to the guilt of foreign President Trump. They obviously viewed
Speaker 5: the evidence is overwhelming for the prosecution, and there was
Speaker 5: obviously little descent among jurors about the outcome of this case.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'd love to talk to ajur about this,
Speaker 1: because I'm curious as to how much the closing arguments
Speaker 1: helped them, because the prosecutor and they went long, and
Speaker 1: they went late, but he took them through just about
Speaker 1: every piece of evidence that they needed to find guilt,
Speaker 1: and in a methodical kind of way, whereas the defense,
Speaker 1: which is the way the defense usually is, is just
Speaker 1: trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's right. I mean, the defense strategy was ultimately
Speaker 5: to try to raise reasonable doubt and to try to
Speaker 5: raise reasonable doubt in the mind of even one juror,
Speaker 5: because a hung jury where there is not unanimity on
Speaker 5: any one count of the indictment is exactually a win
Speaker 5: for the defense. I mean, the prosecutors can try the
Speaker 5: case again, but the individual is not convicted. So here
Speaker 5: I agree with you. I think the prosecution did a
Speaker 5: very good job. They took an awful long time, but
Speaker 5: I think it was worth the time they put in
Speaker 5: there because they did take these jurors through every step
Speaker 5: of this case witnessed by witness in the New York
Speaker 5: state courts. Unlike in federal court, where prosecutors go first
Speaker 5: and then the defense goes and then prosecutors get a rebuttal,
Speaker 5: in New York state court, the defense goes first and
Speaker 5: then prosecutors have the last word. So the closing statements
Speaker 5: here for prosecutors, there was really a combination of rebuttal
Speaker 5: of what the defense presented and also presenting their own
Speaker 5: closing arguments. And that's probably why it took so long.
Speaker 5: But it was very thorough and apparently very effective in
Speaker 5: terms of convincing these jurors that this was really an
Speaker 5: opening shutcase.
Speaker 1: This really presented a unique test of the legal system
Speaker 1: because Trump was a former president. You have that and
Speaker 1: his relentless attacks verbal attack on the case. The judge
Speaker 1: the DA describe how you know if you're the prosecutor
Speaker 1: in the case or you're the judge in this case,
Speaker 1: how that adds to your sort of difficulty or I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say adjita.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Well, certainly there have been other high profile criminal
Speaker 5: prosecutions OJ Simpson. You know, lots of others that were
Speaker 5: very high profile, but we've never really seen one where
Speaker 5: the defendant had the kind of platform that former President
Speaker 5: Trump has every day to step outside of that courtroom
Speaker 5: and to reach millions of Americans commenting on the case,
Speaker 5: commenting on the strength of the evidence, commenting on the witnesses,
Speaker 5: the judge, the prosecutors, challenging them all along the way,
Speaker 5: and that's something the prosecutors, as you say, do not
Speaker 5: typically face. The question though, ultimately is did that make
Speaker 5: its way to the jury in any way? Did that
Speaker 5: have any impact on any of the witnesses? And I
Speaker 5: guess we can conclud that it did not because of
Speaker 5: the swiftness with which this verdict was returned.
Speaker 1: Jurors are always told, you know, you can't look at news,
Speaker 1: you can't do this, you can't do that, and jurors
Speaker 1: often don't listen to those You find out later that
Speaker 1: they don't listen to all the different admonitions that the
Speaker 1: judge gives them. In this case. I mean, it would
Speaker 1: have been hard for them to avoid hearing about over
Speaker 1: five weeks to avoid hearing things about the trial, don't
Speaker 1: you think?
Speaker 5: I agree with that? And I think even leading up
Speaker 5: to the trial, before these twelve individuals were even sitting
Speaker 5: on this jury, there was obviously an enormous amount of
Speaker 5: publicity about this trial, and there were statements made by
Speaker 5: forming and former President Trump about the case, even though
Speaker 5: he was admonished by the judge, and there were gag
Speaker 5: orders in place, But there was an awful lot that
Speaker 5: was out there that they no doubt were exposed to,
Speaker 5: and yet they were instructed to put all of that
Speaker 5: aside and to make it decision based solely upon the
Speaker 5: evidence that was presented to them during the trial by
Speaker 5: the defense, by the prosecutor, and followed the instructions of
Speaker 5: the judge as to the law. And ultimately that's what
Speaker 5: they appear to do here. There's no evidence that they
Speaker 5: listen to information outside the jury room. If that comes
Speaker 5: to light, that creates certainly an issue for the defense
Speaker 5: to take up on appeal, if not sooner. But at
Speaker 5: this point it appears that jurors did what they were
Speaker 5: supposed to do. They followed the rules and they did
Speaker 5: their jobs, and they ultimately found that there was overwhelming
Speaker 5: evidence of guilt in this case.
Speaker 1: So the system worked. Yet we're going to hear over
Speaker 1: and over from Trump that the system didn't work. What
Speaker 1: do you think about appellate issues. I assume one is
Speaker 1: going to be the change of venue, because today, when
Speaker 1: he got out of the court, he started talking about
Speaker 1: the fact that the judge denied a change of venue.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, Well, there's a host of issues that I
Speaker 5: think we'll see raised on appeal. Some of them perhaps
Speaker 5: have more merits than others. But there was that motion
Speaker 5: for a change of venue. As you say, that was
Speaker 5: predicated on the idea that Manhattan voted overwhelmingly for President
Speaker 5: Biden didn't vote for President Trump. I don't think that's
Speaker 5: really a fruitful argument. I don't think you can show
Speaker 5: that the jury pool was infected or was in any
Speaker 5: way by it simply because you didn't vote for somebody
Speaker 5: for president. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have
Speaker 5: an open mind in terms of how you view them
Speaker 5: in a criminal case. But they're going to raise that issue,
Speaker 5: and they're going to point out that there was so
Speaker 5: much pre trial publicity here, but again, that would be
Speaker 5: the case pretty much anywhere in the United States, no
Speaker 5: matter where you went. And if you think about it logically, also,
Speaker 5: if you moved it out of Manhattan to an area
Speaker 5: that another part of the country, you know that area
Speaker 5: might have voted for former President Trump, then you sort
Speaker 5: of have the opposite situation. And so I was not
Speaker 5: surprising to me at all that the judge denied that motion.
Speaker 5: There are other issues, certainly the fact that this is
Speaker 5: a unique and somewhat novel application of the law. The
Speaker 5: way that Alvin Bragg charged this case, it had really
Speaker 5: never been done before. There's no appellate rulings on the
Speaker 5: way he turned the misdemeanors into felonies here by relying
Speaker 5: on an allegation that the cover up was really the
Speaker 5: essence of this crime. In other words, false documents were created.
Speaker 5: That's the business record crime, that's the misdemeanor. But what
Speaker 5: turns into a felony is that it was done for
Speaker 5: the purpose of committing another crime, and that is to
Speaker 5: influence the election. There's not a lot of case law
Speaker 5: on that, and I think we can expect the defense
Speaker 5: to raise that as a major issue on their.
Speaker 1: Appeal, Bob, we discussed when the jury was selected the
Speaker 1: fact that, surprise, surprise, there was not only one, but
Speaker 1: two jurors who were lawyers. Plus you had I think
Speaker 1: three MBA's and someone were a doctorate. This was a
Speaker 1: really smart jury advantage prosecution.
Speaker 5: Well, that was to me always sort of the open
Speaker 5: question as a lawyer and as a prosecutor, even as
Speaker 5: a defense lawyer, you really don't want a lawyer sitting
Speaker 5: on your jury, let alone two of them, because they
Speaker 5: do have the ability to sort of overwhelm the rest
Speaker 5: of the jurors. Because jurors will defer to them, you
Speaker 5: don't really know what their views are. You really want
Speaker 5: it to be a level playing field where everybody has
Speaker 5: the same voice. But in this case, both the defense
Speaker 5: and the prosecutors were willing to have these two jurors
Speaker 5: sit on this jury, and at the end of the day,
Speaker 5: they both I guess decided that an educated jury, one
Speaker 5: that paid close attention to all of the details, somebody
Speaker 5: that was steeped in the law. Even though neither of
Speaker 5: these lawyers were criminal lawyers, but they were lawyers. They
Speaker 5: understood the way the law worked, and I guess both
Speaker 5: prosecutors and the defense thought that that might be an
Speaker 5: advantage to their side.
Speaker 1: Is there anything you think the defense could have done
Speaker 1: to change this? The evidence was overwhelming.
Speaker 5: I think it was a very tough case for the defense.
Speaker 5: They did a pretty good job of beating up on
Speaker 5: Michael Cone. They showed that he had lied before, that
Speaker 5: he had lied repeatedly. They showed that he had a
Speaker 5: financial motive in order to provide this testimony. They showed
Speaker 5: that he had a personal vendetta against former President Trump.
Speaker 5: SOHO really can't score any more points than they did
Speaker 5: with Michael Cohne. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 5: prosecutors did a good job of bolstering and corroborating his
Speaker 5: testimony with other evidence. And one of the things prosecutors did,
Speaker 5: I think very effectively is that they relied on witnesses
Speaker 5: who were clearly still in the Trump camp. People who
Speaker 5: worked for former President Trump. May not have been still
Speaker 5: close to him, like Hope Hicks, but somebody who was
Speaker 5: still loyal to him. And yet they were able to
Speaker 5: elicit testimony that was damaging to the defense and helpful
Speaker 5: for prosecutors from witnesses who had no bias against former
Speaker 5: President Trump whatsoever. That was compelling testimony, and I think
Speaker 5: sat up and paid attention when those witnesses testified.
Speaker 1: You're listening to a special edition of the Bloomberg Law
Speaker 1: Show as we cover the historic verdict former President Donald
Speaker 1: Trump guilty of thirty four felonies. So, Bob, I just
Speaker 1: talked to Joshua and Neftalis, who I'm sure you're familiar with.
Speaker 1: He said he thinks that Donald Trump is going to
Speaker 1: be sentenced to prison. What's your take on that?
Speaker 5: Well, obviously that is now the big question now that
Speaker 5: the conviction has come in and all eyes turned to
Speaker 5: the Jugs here for sentencing. Typically, in a case like this,
Speaker 5: you might not expect a jail sentence, but this is
Speaker 5: not a typical case as a case that is obviously
Speaker 5: a very high profile. It was enormously covered by the Bandia.
Speaker 5: There was enormous attention he really throughout the world, and
Speaker 5: I think the jug is going to be hard pressed
Speaker 5: to only sentence former President Trump to probation in this case.
Speaker 5: So I do think there will be some type of
Speaker 5: jail sentence here, although I think it will be minimal,
Speaker 5: more symbolic than really punitive because of the circumstance of
Speaker 5: a former president, I'm putting him in jail. I also
Speaker 5: think it's likely that the judge will say that sentence
Speaker 5: of incarceration if he in fact imposes that, to allow
Speaker 5: the appeal to go forward, so at the time of
Speaker 5: the election, we won't have a situation where former President
Speaker 5: Trump is actually sitting in jail. Typically in New York State,
Speaker 5: the sentence comes about a month after the conviction, and
Speaker 5: if there's jail imposed, usually that begins almost immediately. But
Speaker 5: the judge does have the discretion to allow the defendant
Speaker 5: to remain on bail pending appeal, which I think is
Speaker 5: likely the scenario we'll see here and.
Speaker 1: Just explain that this is a state conviction. So what
Speaker 1: that means if Donald Trump becomes president.
Speaker 5: Sure, So of all the cases that are out there,
Speaker 5: and there are several, as you know, there are a
Speaker 5: number of federal prosecutions pending, one in the District of
Speaker 5: Columbia involving January sixth, there's the document destruction case down
Speaker 5: in Florida. Those are federal cases that ultimately a president
Speaker 5: can pardon somebody who's convicted of a federal crime. Whether
Speaker 5: a president can pardon himself is untested, but certainly something
Speaker 5: that former President Trump could do if he were to
Speaker 5: be elected president again. But state crimes such as the
Speaker 5: one in Atlanta and this one, that a president cannot
Speaker 5: pardon themselves, So he has no control whatsoever in terms
Speaker 5: of removing this conviction, of overturning it simply because he
Speaker 5: becomes president. The only way to overturn this conviction will
Speaker 5: be on appeal, and they'll have to convince the Court
Speaker 5: of Appeals that there was some type of reversible error
Speaker 5: that was committed here to either throw the case out
Speaker 5: or send it back for a retrial if they're able
Speaker 5: to convince the Court of Appeals that those types of
Speaker 5: errors occur here.
Speaker 1: Is this a vindication for Alvin Bragg and all the
Speaker 1: abuse he took, at least in the media and from
Speaker 1: Republicans about bringing this case, You know, a case that
Speaker 1: was based on misdemeanors and then he bumped it up,
Speaker 1: as you explained before, to felonies. And you know, at
Speaker 1: the press conference, I remember when he brought this, they
Speaker 1: kept asking him over and over and over what's the
Speaker 1: underlying crime? And he didn't say, And we didn't learn
Speaker 1: until we saw the jury instructions really well.
Speaker 5: He did keep that very close to the vest. But
Speaker 5: I think they did a good job of trying to
Speaker 5: convince durreors that this was not a case about record keeping.
Speaker 5: It was a case about election interference. And you heard
Speaker 5: prosecutors actually say during closing arguments that this crime might
Speaker 5: have might have because they could not simply say categorically
Speaker 5: what the outcome would have been, but they said that
Speaker 5: it might have actually affected the outcome of the election.
Speaker 5: In other words, if the Stormy Daniels story had broken
Speaker 5: just days before the election, after the Access Hollywood tapes
Speaker 5: and everything going on there, could it have affected the outcome?
Speaker 5: Could the outcome of the president so the election had
Speaker 5: been different. That was their theme, because they were trying
Speaker 5: to convince jurors that this was a really important case.
Speaker 5: This was not simply a bookkeeping case, a clerical error
Speaker 5: simply calling something a legal engagement letter, a payment of
Speaker 5: a legal retainer when it was really something else. They
Speaker 5: wanted to show the real significance here, and that's why
Speaker 5: they spent so much time talking about what was going
Speaker 5: on in the Trump campaign, the impact of that Access
Speaker 5: Hollywood tape where he was recorded making comments about grabbing
Speaker 5: women and the free fall that the campaign was in
Speaker 5: at that time, and how significant it would have been
Speaker 5: if this story had come out. So they did a
Speaker 5: very good job of selling that story to jurors and
Speaker 5: convincing them that this was really an important case.
Speaker 1: And Alvin Bragg played this much differently from what the
Speaker 1: New York Attorney General, Letitia James did in the case
Speaker 1: where New York was recovering money from the Trump organization.
Speaker 1: So she would come out every day almost in response
Speaker 1: to Trump's statements on the on the courthouse steps. She
Speaker 1: would make statements on the courthouse steps. But Bragg didn't
Speaker 1: make any statements at all. He was in the courtroom
Speaker 1: a few times, but nothing to the press. And then
Speaker 1: tonight it was a very low key kind of press
Speaker 1: conference and he didn't answer the questions that people were
Speaker 1: firing at him about whether they were going to see
Speaker 1: jail time, et cetera. Is that the difference between a
Speaker 1: criminal and a civil case or is that just different personalities.
Speaker 5: I think that's really just a question of different styles.
Speaker 5: And you're absolutely right that the Manhattan DA was incredibly understated.
Speaker 5: At the press conference after the conviction, he almost tried
Speaker 5: to make it sound like this was just another day
Speaker 5: in the office. While this was an important case, he
Speaker 5: cited a couple other important cases his office had recently handled,
Speaker 5: and he was really trying to convey that this case
Speaker 5: was nothing special in terms of how it was handled
Speaker 5: by this office. It was straight down the middle. The
Speaker 5: fact that it was a former president, that it was historic,
Speaker 5: none of that ultimately affected how the case was prosecuted,
Speaker 5: how the charges were brought, and how it was ultimately handled.
Speaker 5: And I think that was an effective strategy. The prosecutors
Speaker 5: and the Manhattan DA himself let them let all of
Speaker 5: their talking take place in the courtroom and did not
Speaker 5: engage in any of the theatrics and the hyperbole that
Speaker 5: we saw from former President Trump. And as you say,
Speaker 5: the Attorney General Letitia James in the civil case, so
Speaker 5: he really tried to downplay the circus atmosphere and focused
Speaker 5: the public on what was going on inside the courtroom,
Speaker 5: which ultimately I think was an effective strategy.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Bob, as always a pleasure having you on.
Speaker 1: That's former federal prosecutor Robert Mints of McCarter and English. Well,
Speaker 1: we're going to continue with our coverage of the Donald
Speaker 1: Trump verdict. We are covering a jury verdict late this
Speaker 1: afternoon which found Donald Trump guilty of thirty four felony counts.
Speaker 1: Joining us now is someone who is in the courtroom
Speaker 1: for the entire trial, Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg Legal reporter. So, pat,
Speaker 1: did you think it would happen so fast? I mean,
Speaker 1: we've talked almost every day about this case, and it
Speaker 1: seemed like a verdict was far away.
Speaker 7: Well, you know, from the way the defense was talking.
Speaker 7: They delivered closing arguments, and I thought it was really
Speaker 7: interesting yesterday that the jury had asked for testimony between
Speaker 7: David Pecker and Michael Cohen, and the defense lawyer Todd
Speaker 7: Blanchett argued in closing to the jury that Cowen had
Speaker 7: completely contradicted Pecker. But if you let actually listen to
Speaker 7: the readback which of the testimony we heard this morning,
Speaker 7: it became really clear that he didn't at all. It
Speaker 7: actually that they had corroborated each other, it seemed. Then
Speaker 7: the jury got quiet for quite some time, and then
Speaker 7: this app afternoon suddenly half of the courtroom lost their internet,
Speaker 7: So when the verdict was being announced, half of us
Speaker 7: did not have any ability to cover it because it
Speaker 7: went down. Whether it was jammed or it was an accident,
Speaker 7: I don't know, but it was quite heart stopping. But
Speaker 7: it gave me the ability to really stop and look
Speaker 7: at everybody and to hear that first count guilty, and
Speaker 7: then here for four straight minutes, thirty four counts of guilty, guilty, guilty,
Speaker 7: guilty being uttered. It was just unbelievable, like a wave.
Speaker 7: And then we heard cheers from outside the courthouse. Were
Speaker 7: on the fifteenth floor, but it seemed that the word
Speaker 7: had gotten filtered out to news crews outside and there
Speaker 7: were cheers from people out in the park that had
Speaker 7: gathered to hear it. So it was quite a historic moment.
Speaker 1: Did do you know did the jurors look at Donald
Speaker 1: Trump when they were reading.
Speaker 7: That they they filed in and they did not make
Speaker 7: eye contact with him what they walked in, which is
Speaker 7: to me always a tip off. And then as they
Speaker 7: were looking most of them were looking down. But they
Speaker 7: pulled the jury and it was unanimous.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump heard this. It seemed to me like from
Speaker 1: his statements outside the courthouse that he was sort of
Speaker 1: prepared for this. I mean the other day he said
Speaker 1: that you know it would take mother Teresa to beat
Speaker 1: these charges.
Speaker 7: Well, I mean I did speak to my colleague photographers.
Speaker 7: I mean we were locked in the courtroom. We're not
Speaker 7: allowed to move if Trunk is moving for his security concerns.
Speaker 7: But my colleague photographers captured some astounding images of his
Speaker 7: trial team looking completely shattered and shocked, including Lena Haba,
Speaker 7: his lawyer, with her jaw dropping open, and some of
Speaker 7: the court officers looked stricken. It was an amazing thing.
Speaker 7: And they said that Trump seemed to be fumbling to
Speaker 7: try to figure out what to say. He as he
Speaker 7: walked out of the courtroom, he said, so sat stoneface
Speaker 7: as the verdict was announced and looked straight ahead, and
Speaker 7: then he got up and he was it looked like
Speaker 7: you know when his face was just fury. And then
Speaker 7: he turned around and he fist bumped his son, Eric Trump,
Speaker 7: who would see it right behind him. And then he
Speaker 7: basically strode down the center aisle of the courtroom and
Speaker 7: walked out to have to make his statement.
Speaker 5: But it was not the.
Speaker 7: Kind of forceful thing you typically expect from Donald Trump. No,
Speaker 7: so you know, he might have been prepared that he
Speaker 7: was possibly expecting the guilty verdict.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was very much similar to things that he's
Speaker 1: been saying, you know, basically every day, every other day.
Speaker 1: What about the prosecutors, were they smiling at least?
Speaker 7: Yes, there were huge grins from the prosecutors like Josh Steinlass,
Speaker 7: who spent five hours on Tuesday trying to convince the
Speaker 7: jury and going through all the massive evidence. He called
Speaker 7: it a mountain of evidence. A Matthew Colangelo, who was
Speaker 7: a former federal prosecutor who had done a masterful job
Speaker 7: of openings. He had a huge grin. And Susan Hoffinger,
Speaker 7: who came to joined Bragg's team as a criminal defense lawyer,
Speaker 7: as a criminal defense lawyer, she came back as a prosecutor.
Speaker 7: She had done an amazing cross examination of Robert Costello,
Speaker 7: who was Trump's witness, and they all had huge grins
Speaker 7: on their faces.
Speaker 1: You know better than anyone having covered this so long,
Speaker 1: the sort of abuse that Alvin Bragg has taken for
Speaker 1: bringing this case and for having Michael Cohen as the
Speaker 1: star witness. And yet right after he really didn't gloat
Speaker 1: or anything. He just was very very straightforward about the case.
Speaker 7: Alvin Bragg has a reputation. I was listening to Rob Ninstre.
Speaker 7: He has a reputation of being a very circumspect person.
Speaker 7: He's not a dynamic speaker at all. And I think
Speaker 7: under the law and criminal cases are different from Tis James.
Speaker 7: So she can go out and have a press conference,
Speaker 7: but under criminal law, prosecutors have to be much more
Speaker 7: careful of what they're saying on the courthouse steps, and
Speaker 7: they cannot basically try their case on the steps of
Speaker 7: the courthouse. They have to limit their statements to what's
Speaker 7: going on in court. Alan Bragg is practitioner of that
Speaker 7: to the NS degree. But he did seem very happy,
Speaker 7: and he was basically saying that, well, they've had massive
Speaker 7: fights and battles to this reach this day, a jury
Speaker 7: has ultimately spoken, and now we've arrived at this trial,
Speaker 7: and ultimately this verdict is in the same manner that
Speaker 7: any other case is brought in this courthouse. But even
Speaker 7: if it's historic, it was treated just the way the
Speaker 7: office is always handled white collar crime.
Speaker 1: He also didn't say whether or not the prosecutors would
Speaker 1: be seeking prison time for Donald Trump. Do you have
Speaker 1: any insight into that, Well.
Speaker 7: He can ask. Under the law, it's anywhere from one
Speaker 7: in a third to four years for each count. I
Speaker 7: understand it would not be added to stamps together and
Speaker 7: you know, all of them linked together and add it
Speaker 7: up to you know, let's say seventy years in prison
Speaker 7: or whatever. It would be consecutive, so they would all
Speaker 7: be concurrent, so they would all merge together. Whether or
Speaker 7: not a first time offender who's Trump's age faces prison
Speaker 7: is another matter. I don't know what Judge Mershawn is
Speaker 7: going to do. And Alvin Bragg wouldn't say what he's
Speaker 7: going to do, but he said he would limit his
Speaker 7: statements and comments about what he's going to do about
Speaker 7: Donald Trump to the court and court filings.
Speaker 1: Stay with US Patty. Joining us now is former federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor Michael Zelden. Michael, I've asked everyone, because this is
Speaker 1: a question on a lot of people's minds, whether or
Speaker 1: not you think Donald Trump will be sentenced to some
Speaker 1: time in prison.
Speaker 6: I don't. I don't think you should. If you want
Speaker 6: to keep the system working according to the you know,
Speaker 6: sort of structure of it, a person with his past
Speaker 6: record should be put on probation. Now, he is a
Speaker 6: former political official, and sometimes it's important to make these
Speaker 6: politically exposed persons held a capable to a higher standard,
Speaker 6: and if the judge thinks that's appropriate, then I would
Speaker 6: think a period of house arrest could be important message
Speaker 6: to be sent to other public officials. But going to
Speaker 6: Rikers Island or some place like that, I be very surprised.
Speaker 1: Judge Murshawn maybe deserves an award for his ability to
Speaker 1: take this case through to the end and not lose
Speaker 1: his temper too many times. I mean, it was a
Speaker 1: tough case to preside over. He encountered so many obstacles
Speaker 1: day after day that you wouldn't encounter in a normal trial.
Speaker 6: Well, you encounter them in high publicity trials. We saw
Speaker 6: that in the judge edo failure in the OJ Simpson case.
Speaker 6: I think we saw with a certain extent in the
Speaker 6: judge ergo On trial for the Letitia James case. I
Speaker 6: think both of those judges, on a sliding scale, didn't
Speaker 6: do as well as this judge. I think this judge
Speaker 6: handled himself professionally, did not take debate ever, protected the
Speaker 6: judicial personnel and other family members of them appropriately, and
Speaker 6: I think he gave a sober recitation of what the
Speaker 6: criminal justice system should look like.
Speaker 1: Pat tell Us about the judge's sort of performance here,
Speaker 1: I'll say.
Speaker 7: The judge has been extremely careful and cautious. He's a
Speaker 7: very mild mannered guy. He never loses his temper. I
Speaker 7: made the joke to you June that most of us
Speaker 7: would love to have a husband like that, because he
Speaker 7: never loses his temper. He as and he has been challenged.
Speaker 7: I think the magnumity of the important import of what
Speaker 7: he has to do in this case has always weighed
Speaker 7: heavily on him, and he takes it extremely seriously. So
Speaker 7: he's not a kind of guy like Judging Goren, who
Speaker 7: used to make jokes and be very jocular and make
Speaker 7: you know, goof arown. He is a just a very
Speaker 7: serious person. So I mean, and he's been challenged by Trump,
Speaker 7: has Alvin Bragg, and has that trial team. They've had
Speaker 7: death threats so and Judge Mershawn's daughter was threatened. So
Speaker 7: and we all need to remember that Donald Trump had
Speaker 7: promised death and destruction if he got indicted, and that's
Speaker 7: what happened. So here we are a year later, and
Speaker 7: everybody's had to deal with this historic case with a
Speaker 7: historic that doesn't act like most offidents.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Michael I mean, we didn't hear from the
Speaker 1: jurors so far. I'm not sure if we will hear
Speaker 1: from the jurors because of you know, the ways at
Speaker 1: least part of the country has reacted to Donald Trump
Speaker 1: being prosecuted.
Speaker 6: If I were a juror, I would be quiet. I
Speaker 6: don't see any value to them individually in speaking forward. Now.
Speaker 6: The news networks, of course, are going to be doing
Speaker 6: everything and they can to get their first big scoop
Speaker 6: of the juror to talk about what happened in the
Speaker 6: jury room. But I think we'd be better off and
Speaker 6: they individually, we're better off if we just let.
Speaker 4: It be as it is now.
Speaker 1: Patty, what do you think book deals? I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a lot that a juror could do here.
Speaker 7: It was stunning to be that prospective jurors walked out
Speaker 7: of the courthouse after being dismissed and saying they were
Speaker 7: too frightened to be on a jury, and then they
Speaker 7: walked in front of the CE cameras and gave interviews
Speaker 7: as always shocks me. I've also as a veteran court
Speaker 7: reporter and have covered hundreds of trials where the jurors
Speaker 7: will say, oh, sorry, no interviews, including Glenne Maxwell's juror
Speaker 7: that later came forward and staid he would you know
Speaker 7: that he had cried when he left the courthouse. And
Speaker 7: I actually door stopped him as he walked out of
Speaker 7: the Manhattan Sedal Courthouse and said would you like to comment?
Speaker 7: And he basically ran away from me. So I'm always
Speaker 7: kind of surprised when I see people, but I guess
Speaker 7: when they want to see get their fifteen minutes the same,
Speaker 7: some people are very tempted. I personally kind of think
Speaker 7: in this case, you know, I will look for every
Speaker 7: angle to challenge this. So I kind of agree there
Speaker 7: with my cops that I don't know if it's such
Speaker 7: a good idea, especially for someone like Donald Trump who
Speaker 7: wants to and his followers. So I don't know they
Speaker 7: want to proceed as and.
Speaker 1: The judge spoke to the jurors after the verdict was
Speaker 1: handed down.
Speaker 7: Patty yes, and he thanked them for their service, and
Speaker 7: he said things like, you know, this was an amazing
Speaker 7: job you guys did, and it was historic and what
Speaker 7: you've done is you've paid all this attention and you
Speaker 7: know you've.
Speaker 5: It.
Speaker 7: You know, he wanted to thank them personally, so he
Speaker 7: asked them. He said, I can't get into details of
Speaker 7: the case, but I also just want to thank you personally.
Speaker 7: And you know, we also had other jurors reach verdicts
Speaker 7: on We had two other jurors juries reached verdicts on
Speaker 7: Donald Trump in New York City. We had two Manhattan
Speaker 7: federal juris in the E. G. And Carroll case, and
Speaker 7: they were both deemed anonymous by the federal judge in
Speaker 7: that case. So it kind of I don't know that's
Speaker 7: the practice in federal court. But you know, he said,
Speaker 7: you were engaged in a very stressful and difficult task,
Speaker 7: and I want you to know that I really admire
Speaker 7: your dedication and hard work. You're free to discuss this
Speaker 7: case with anyone, and you're free to not discuss it.
Speaker 7: The choice is yours.
Speaker 1: How long do you think before we see appellet papers here?
Speaker 7: I understand under New York state law. I talked to
Speaker 7: two criminal defense players, the veteran criminal defense layers in
Speaker 7: New York, and they said that under the law in
Speaker 7: New York, a defendant cannot appeal start their appeal until
Speaker 7: after their sentence because of technically, in this weird limbo
Speaker 7: awaiting sentence. So Donald Trump has to wait to at
Speaker 7: least a lie to file those papers. That's not going
Speaker 7: to mean he's not going to try it, and his
Speaker 7: lawyers did. Today. After the verdict, Todd Blinch stood and
Speaker 7: asked for an acquittal, saying that Michael Cohene was completely unbelievable,
Speaker 7: and the judge firmly rejected it. Now, going on to
Speaker 7: what Mershawn has said about prison, he has warned Trump
Speaker 7: that he has to he had to obey the gag
Speaker 7: order or else he might have to imprison him. And
Speaker 7: he called it the you know, basically it was like
Speaker 7: a last resort that he didn't want to do for
Speaker 7: its pre trial whether or not he does it. He
Speaker 7: said to the jury when the defense lawyer mentioned, don't
Speaker 7: send him to prison on this these charges, that was
Speaker 7: a call for a curative instruction. And the judge told
Speaker 7: the jury this verdict may not result in prison.
Speaker 1: We'll have to leave it there. That's the big question
Speaker 1: going going forward. Thank you both, Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg Legal
Speaker 1: reporter and Michael Zelden, former federal prosecutor. And that's it
Speaker 1: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg