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