Some tech millionaires and billionaires have a terrifying vision for the future of San Francisco that involves splitting up residents ideologically by color. Tech align citizens, adopt great uniforms, and they buy up and take over entire blocks of the city, and the blues, those of the Democrats, are kept out of the gray areas. If our writing this is a science fiction novel, it would seem unbelievable, but this is apparently a real thing.
Who's behind this idea, and why should you take it seriously? That's this week on Power User. What's the tallest mountain in the world? Sounds easy, right? Turns out it all depends on how you measure it. Denali is taller than Everest, Manakaia is actually taller than Everest, and Timberazo is the closest mountain to space. For the next two weeks, unexplainable is exploring the most extreme places in the world. This week, the tallest place on Earth. And what does tallest even mean?
Listen to unexplainable for new episodes every Wednesday. From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is a special edition of Stay Tuned. I'm Preet Barar. Former President Donald Trump was just convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The Manhattan jury delivered its verdict after just two days of deliberation following a trial that spans six weeks. The guilty verdict marks the first time in US history that a former president has been found guilty of a crime.
And it also makes Trump the first presidential candidate to run as a convicted felon. Joining me to discuss are my CAFE insider co-host, Joyce Vance, CAFE contributor, and CNN legal analyst, Ellie Honeg, and Westchester County District Attorney, Mimi Roca. So everyone, welcome to this special episode of Stay Tuned. I don't think we've had this collection of talent representing the stables of both MSNBC and CNN and the world ever.
Joyce, Ellie Mimi, welcome. When we start with you, Mimi, sitting district attorney in the adjacent jurisdiction of Westchester County, I understand that you're in a car. But feel strongly enough about talking about the verdict that you're joining us. First question to you. Lisa Pryce, at all about the speed of the conviction. Thanks for having me. Great to be with this group of talent on the historic day.
August group. I think it's an August group. August group. I think the answer to your question is, no, I wasn't surprised by the speed. I think, you know, as all of us know, what the number of counts, I think is what people were focused on, right? Oh, there's, there's, I think it's 34 counts. That will take them forever to go through.
But the truth is that in many cases, and in this case, the counts were all very related. And once they found, as clearly this jury did find, that the people had driven beyond a reasonable doubt that the falsification of business records happened to cover up another crime. And that the intent was there. It really all flows from there. And so they, while yes, they had to be unanimous as to each count.
It would have been very unusual, I think, in a case like this for them to find in guilty on only some of the counts. So I think the number of counts made it seem like something where deliberations would have gone on and on forever. Yeah. In many ways, it came down to focusing on the evidence that the people asked them to focus on. And they did that very quickly and were able to arrive at a verdict.
Yeah, you know, what's interesting? I don't know what led you or or Joyce think. I had thought there might be a reasonable possibility that on some of the counts, there would be either a hung jury or an acquittal in particular, the invoices, right? Donald Trump was more disassociated from Ellie, you, you've been a little bit more pessimistic about the chances of success at this trial for the prosecution than some. What do you make of it?
Well, yeah, I mean, I do want to be clear about that. I've said throughout, including. Okay, Ellie. Well, listen, this is an important distinction. People need to distinguish between being critical of a case and thinking the case is going to result in a guilty verdict or not. We're not here to cheerlead. And the fact that I've been critical of this case, I've also been quite clear.
I didn't say I didn't say critical. I guess you have me. I just said more pessimistic about the chances of success for the prosecution than some of us. But I don't know that I even agree with that because I've said in my cafe notes for the last several weeks running the most likely outcome is conviction.
So I retain and that my note this week, I respect the jury's verdict. I don't think anyone can say they got it right or wrong. I think it was this case is within the range where reasonable jurors could come out either way. But I think there are still deep seated problems with this case that are not cured by the jury's verdict. That said, my position all long has been that conviction is the most likely outcome here. Sorry to come out firing, but I'm a little frustrated with someone.
Are you in a moving, are you in a moving car? No, no, but look, some of the, some of the resistance capital are response to my commentary has been, who you are wrong. No, I've said all along, brace for conviction here in writing in this very format. But I, and we'll get into this. I still think this case was unjustified has political problems in it has structural problems that are not cured by a jury verdict.
You know, Joyce and I have talked about at some length, some of the problems with the case in particular, I think we've gone off a great length about the problematic nature of Michael Cohen and how jurors could have thrown out the entirety of his testimony.
Joyce, I'm going to give you the unfortunate task of picking up where Ellie left off and putting on as I often ask you to do your appeals hat. So a lot of people gratified that dial Trump has been held accountable all 34 counts, whether that's for political reasons or for rule of law reasons. The Trump supporters keep saying, well, we'll see when the appellate court, what's going to happen on appeal here? What do you think are the most viable appellate points for Todd Blanchon company?
Yeah. So if Donald Trump holds true to form, this will be one of those scattershot appeals where they argue everything, including the kitchen sink in hopes that something will stiff. And look, I think that they've got some good issues to raise, but I don't think that they've got an issue that will amount to reversible air. I think that's my top line, but there are some big deal legal issues.
For instance, there's a question of whether you can use a federal crime as the object crime here turned out that the crime that elevated the misdemeanor charge to a felony was a federal campaign finance charge. Trump will litigate that I think based on the law he will lose there will be an issue. We all remember when there was the effort at the mistrial around stormy Daniel's testimony, they'll argue that she went into impermissible testimony and it prejudiced the jury. They will lose.
They will argue that this was a tainted venue where Donald Trump could not get a fair trial and they will lose that one too. And I think so on and on down the line, these are the kind of issues that will probably lead to Trump getting an appeal bond. That's a somewhat low standard. All you have to do is is, um, convinced the court that you've got a significant issue on appeal in order to remain free on bond while the appeal is pending.
But I think that that's the last break Donald Trump will get and that this conviction gets affirmed. And so, Emily Mimi, do you think there are other problems? Ellie talked about structural problems. What haunts you on the issue of appeal? I agree with Joyce. I think there's substantial issues on appeal. I think they're the chances of a reversal are larger than normal in a normal criminal case.
But I also think that on balance, it'll probably stand up. You know, the biggest structural issues to me, the big one is charging a federal campaign violation, even as a sort of sub crime in a state court. I've literally never been done in any state ever before anywhere, anytime. So we don't know whether that's going to stand up. And then there's the sort of menu problem where there were three unlawful means offered the judge let the jury pick and choose didn't require unanimity or specificity.
Yeah, I'm that unanimity point like that sort of bothers me. I haven't understood how that's okay. And could the prosecution have decided in an abundance of caution, which would have made the conviction more difficult. Could have decided they were going to pick one and try to get unanimity. What would you have done on that? It's a great question. And to me, the three they offered the three options were one federal campaign law, two tax and three falsification of some other documents.
I don't know why they didn't just drop two and three. They spent next to no time on tax or falsification of other documents at trial, clearly their strongest argument and clearly the one they focused 99.5% of their fire on was the federal campaign law. So to me, make it easier, make it clear for the jury and eliminate the appeals issue, drop the other two.
Yeah, can I just jump on this one and say of all the issues I should have flagged this one. This is the one that really does concern me the most. There's a Supreme Court case called Richard son that in the context of a completely different federal statute requires unanimity on on a sort of a similar thing where jurors have to, you know, find that there's another conviction involved in the background.
This case is a little bit different from that one and that law may not carry over here, but I think that this is where the defense has a good opportunity to both get the appeal bond and to try to convince an appellate court that there's a reason to reverse. Mimi is the only sitting district attorney in this conversation. I ask you to explain to folks what happens now a sensing date was set for July 11th. What happens between now and then will there be arguments?
Will there be a report written does Donald Trump have free reign to do whatever he wants? What's the process going forward? So I think the way well with this group in particular, I'll start is to say it's much less formal and structured than the federal system. So yes, there is a report done by probation, but it is not nearly as extensive as what we see in the federal system. And it doesn't frankly carry in a normal case.
And look, I'm speaking about Westchester County, you know, Manhattan is a different county. It could be different. They have a larger probation department than we do. So maybe it is a little more expensive. Maybe it carries more weight, but it's an interview of the defendant usually. You know, I don't know what will happen here, whether you will participate in that interview as you know they can decline to.
But it isn't going to I don't think sort of unearthed anything really unexpected here as you know sometimes where there's a little less known about the person. You know, we often have sentencing discussions in our office where we don't even it doesn't even come up what the sort of pre-sentence report is or whether there is a recommendation because it just doesn't carry as much weight here as it does in the federal system.
The judges have a lot more latitude here. I know everyone's been saying that he's facing up to four years. It's not quite right because in the state system there is a indeterminate sentence for an e felony, which is says, which is the maximum is one and a third to four years.
So it isn't quite right to say that the maximum is four years. It can be anywhere from one and a third to four years, but that's just the maximum. It can be anything below that as well. It can be probation. It can be conditional discharge. The one thing I wanted to say is obviously, you know, if they could move to join the sentence, but they also want to appeal.
And so they probably wouldn't do that. There could certainly be bail pending appeal. So even if a sentence is imposed, even if there was some kind of jail or prison. That could be, you know, stayed until the appeal is done.
And the last thing I wanted to say is that I do think just like in the federal system, the sort of contortion or acceptance of responsibility, even after a trial is something a judge will take into account and the probation department will ask for the defendant about if they interview him. And obviously, clearly that could be a big factor here because I don't know that Trump will accept any kind of responsibility. You don't know you actually know you know that you will do the opposite.
So exactly. It was a witch hunt, Mimi Rokka. I heard. Can I ask the other two of you if I'm not going to ask you what you yet, what you think judge, Mershon will do. But if you're the DA's office and you're putting in your submission with respect to sentencing, are you asking for a term of incarceration? Or you ask it, or you leaving it to the judge like, how are they going to phrase what they think the appropriate punishment is for Donald Trump in this unprecedented case?
I'm going to make the ask for custody for this reason. I mean, it's important in sentencing to be consistent with your cases across the board. Rarely not always they ask for custody in this sort of a case, but you know, you've got a first time offender. It's not a violent crime. He's older, but you have this persistent history of violating the gag order, something that he could have been put in custody for. The court was very, very patient with Donald Trump.
And you know, I think about and I think in my academic context when I teach criminal law, the reasons we have a criminal justice system. To prevent recidivism, to hold people accountable, right? With Donald Trump, there's no acceptance of responsibility. There's no possibility of rehabilitation. There's no concept of general or specific deterrence. In fact, Donald Trump's behavior really promotes disregard for the rule of law. And so I'm left at bottom with punishment here.
I think Donald Trump has to spend some time in custody and the DA's office will ask for it. Is that easier for the judge to do? If he also decides, as Mimi suggests, that he can send Donald Trump to some period of incarceration, but grant him bail pending appeal. So that punishment wouldn't be visited upon him for months or a year or two. Yeah. I think absolutely. I think it's both easier and I think it's legally correct that he's entitled to that appeal bond until that point in time.
Yeah, this sentencing is going to be extraordinarily difficult for all parties except the defense. The defense position is easy, right? No, you shouldn't be given prison time. I think if I was in the prosecution's shoes, I would ask for detention for prison time as well for the reasons, joy, states. And also, it's just hard to bring a case like this, get a conviction across the board and say we're fine with probation. Yeah. Well, so how much time, how much time are they asking for?
Well, so and that sort of brings to the second point, which it wouldn't shock me to see the DA who we all know to varying extents, Alvin, I mean, Mimi and Preet and I know very well.
It wouldn't shock me to see him and only this is a criticism, just trying to foresee the future, sort of punting a little bit like taking a little bit of a non-specific sentencing stance like, for example, your honor, we we asked the court to impose a punishment consistent with the seriousness of the offense and the nature of the defendant and sufficient to impose deterrence in the future, something like that without saying a number.
And then God help the judge. I mean, when you as the prosecution, this is the way I would think about it, if I were the DA, I did think about it this way when I was the US attorney.
You can be somewhat non-specific in that sense, but then you would give the judge sort of a matrix and say, you know, in the past five years, defendants who have been convicted of these kinds of charges, falsification of documents raised to an e felony, have gotten a range of sentences, depending on their peculiar circumstances, from probation to, you know, 18 months in prison or whatever the case may be.
So that the judge sees how ordinary people who fell into these categories were treated and then leave it to the judge. What wouldn't they do that? This is why you were the US attorney. I think that's it. I think that's a really good approach. I mean, again, I think I would really want to avoid making an ask.
I think the right thing that the boulder prosecutorial move is to make an ask. And if I was in that position, I would ask for prison, but I would I also would be looking for a softer way to do it. And I think maybe a soft ask for prison. Here's all the information you need judge. Here's the concerns we have and we, you know, you'll impose whatever sense you think is appropriate.
Can I jump in for like I got to disagree with you guys here because again, I'm only I can speak from the perspective of what's already. Do you have Mimi Roker? Well, I mean, it's very rare that I see, but it's because I do think at least again in my county, the judges here would lose their mind if we didn't make a recommendation in a case like this.
In the people. Yeah, the people almost always do make recommendations in the state system. Right. Like we're used to as federal prosecutors, prosecutors being much more deferential like here's the range. And you should impose some and it just here they really look to the parties. They can do whatever they want afterwards. Yeah, but I think if I were Judge Mershon, I would be I would say, okay, but what do you think the sentence should be here? It doesn't mean he's going to do it.
So pretend to pretend your pretend you're in New York County. What is the appropriate seek for the prosecution? Well, I'm got that I'm going to pun ton a little bit. As a sitting GA, you know, way and on what the other DA should do. But can I ask you this? Are you are you able to weigh in on whether or not you think the DA will or should seek some period of incarceration?
So I think if I had a guess, I would say that I an educated guess, obviously, I think you will ask for some much shorter than what people are talking about out there. Everyone saying, oh, you know, Michael Cohen got three years. So Trump should get four. I mean, it just for some all Michael Cohen, fun to other counts. That was the federal system New York. Stuttances are, you know, take whatever a federal sentence might be on the exact crime and cut it in half at least first time not as Joyce.
I think said first time nonviolent offenders often don't get any jail time. But I think given this what they view as a seriousness of the case, it would not be surprising for them to ask for thumb. But I think people have to really lower their expectations. Can we be clear on one point with this group for the listeners? Whether or not the DA seeks a period of incarceration, whether or not the judge imposes one given the pending appeal.
Does everyone agree that the possibility of Donald Trump spending time in prison before the election is pretty much zero? Yes. Yeah, before the election, absolutely. Yeah, that's an important question that people have. Now, what happens is in the scenario in which the judge imposes, you know, a 12-month sentence, you know, suspends it because he grants the defendant Donald Trump bail pending appeal. Then Donald Trump wins the election. He loses the appeal in the spring of 2025.
He's the sitting president of the United States commander in chief. The appeal is lost normally by operation of law. He would then go to prison for 12 months. What's going to happen in the scenario that I described? So this is a great hypothetical. I think it's not that far fetched. No, it's not at all. I mean, there's a, you know, 50% or so chance of all that happening.
I think the answer is he can't, he just, I can't give you the constitutional doctrine behind it, but there's just no way a sitting president gets locked up, especially on a state level case. Now, I guess if Trump wins, he'll be out of office in January of 2029. Well, and that one, it's easy. In that circumstance, he just, he just has to do with any other ordinary citizen would do, right? Which is start of the time.
Yeah. So with this, I don't see any scenario, I don't see any scenario where the sitting president gets locked up on a state case. And how would that work? The judge would just decide upon a motion that I'm changing my sentence. I think Trump appeals it gets it into the US Supreme Court, whether that has legs or not, it creates delay blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right. And Alito and Thomas say there's no history or tradition of incarcerating a former president from the founding.
So I think that's probably what happened. I'm curious. Do any of you think there's any realistic chance that Trump, if let's, let's assume the scenario pre-set that that trouble would actually have to serve time while setting president. I don't think so. I mean, that's not good. That's just the crazy scenario. It's a crazy scenario. And people, I don't know what the justification legal justification would be for presidential purposes.
But you, I mean, I'm sorry this is not going to make everyone happy, but you can't send the commander in chief. If he's won the election to the who scout. I think the legal doctrine is it just can't be. I think that's this illegal impossibility. Can we talk about the trial a little bit? We mentioned already that Alvin Bragg is a friend of three out of the four of us. So was Todd Blanche. Todd Blanche is, I consider a friend, former colleague to you, Mimi and also you Ellie.
He went on television last night. And I don't know if he was really tired, but it was not an impressive performance in talking about how he took the tack that he took. Someone pointed out that Blanche made the point when asked, you know, who decided trial strategy? How involved was all Trump? And he said he was deeply involved. We made every decision jointly. Every decision that we made, we made as a team and not just president Trump and myself, but the whole team.
And so, and again, every defendant, everybody who has their life on the line in history will tap their lawyer every once well and say, hey, what about this? What about that? I never, we had, we not only did we get along during the trial, but we were on the same page about strategy and about what we should be doing and not doing.
And the point that someone was making was, yeah, you know, he just finished telling the world that he didn't micromanage anything, including payments in the hush money fashion. But he micromanages trial is a little bit of a disconnect there could blanche, did Blanche just do the best he could have with the facts and law that existed? Or did he make some mistakes?
I'll take this one first. Look, I think we all understand as former prosecutors, the notion of podium privilege, right? We this was a doctrine. One of the unwritten rules we had that you always respect the person who's standing at the podium. He's the one he or she's the one in the arena. They're the ones who have to make the call. And it's, I think it's against all of our instinct and training to Monday morning quarterback. But that's what we do now.
I think we have to be careful with the image and some of it as relates to Todd Blanche. Looking back at Blanche's performance, I think the biggest mistake he made, or I can't, let's not even say that the thing I would have done differently as a lesson I learned in the Southern District of New York, which is pick your battles. And I think I would have gone much more thematic and much more narrow and much harder in those areas.
I don't think I would have ever mentioned the words mic do go or doorman or maybe even stormy Daniels. I certainly would not have committed in opening to this attack that he never had sets with her. My turn should all that would have been like none of that matters. This case is about whether Donald Trump knew about this financial scheme that Michael Cohen and Alan Weiselberg cooked up. And then I would have just gone all out on Michael Cohen.
I would have said you can't convict unless you trust Michael Cohen. You can't trust you can't trust Michael Cohen. And I also don't know that Todd made the Michael Cohen argument as effectively as he could have. I'll give you just one example. To me, the fact that Michael Cohen stole $60,000 from Donald Trump, not on the side, but on the very transaction that is the basis of this crime, I would have made so much more of that because I want to say to the jury.
The prosecution's entire theory here is he knew you bet he knew he knew everything he was a micro manger. He knew he knew he knew you know what? He sure as hell did not know and you know for a fact he did not know because he was getting robbed on this very transaction. So he sure as heck did not know everything and I would tell you know so that would be my name already. So I want to be much more focused less scatter shot.
To me, the biggest problem was and there's no fixing this because you had a particular client. There's no conceiting anything. I mean, you and I everyone on this conversation has seen. Deaf defense counsel say, look, you don't have to like my client. You don't have to like the fact that he had these interactions with stormy Daniels and others. But it's not a crime, right?
And you can see that some of the behavior was unseemly and humanizes the guy and you draw a fine line of demarcation between unseemly conduct or you know bad conduct versus criminal conduct and he wasn't permitted to do that here. I think that's right. In other words, the trial ended up being about sort of the two most extreme versions.
If he did have the affair or whatever you want to call it with stormy Daniels and payments were made, then the jury was left almost they sort of had to buy the narrative or find the narrative to be true from the prosecution because the defense was presenting such an alternate universe. So they didn't leave a lot of room for, okay, yeah, maybe this happened, but it's not a crime as you say. And I think that could have been more effective.
Can I just say one other thing, which is we certainly as you are and can and should certainly the legal commentators amongst this group engage and you know sort of was the prosecution closing too long. How effective was that and what you know what did Todd later to work with and all that and that's important. But I think we also should talk for a minute about the fact that they were response to the jury's verdict.
It's not surprising, but it's still I think worth mentioning has been consistently from including Todd Lansch last night, but certainly all the you know pro Trump commentators and in hero was at this last night. And others saying that this was a rigged trial, not just in the Democrats, brought it Joe Biden made, you know, Alvin Bragg bring it, which is frankly a preposterous accusation, even if you don't think it was a good charge that that is not what happened.
But also the idea that the jury was not fair and I find that so problematic for our system because I understand it's New York it's heavily democratic, etc. But the jurors who couldn't be impartial said they couldn't be impartial and were excused the jurors who were seated were jurors that are picked the same way jurors are picked in trials.
Every single day in this state and they took a note that they could be impartial and liking someone and being impartial are two different things and listening to the judges instructions, which they asked for, and then read back on you know to look at the evidence and so I again I'm not surprised they're making this claim, but essentially what they're saying is, juries are not fair and this jury was picked and sat and instructed in the same way as every other jury and I,
and I don't believe that to be true, even if you don't like the verdict and I find it problematic that they can't accept a verdict as a fair verdict, even if criticizing it. Look, Alvin, Alvin Bragg would have accepted the verdict if it had gone the other way in what a city respected that's the statement that you put out that I used to put out someone pointed out on social media. This is just your reminder that the defense also participated in jury selection.
So I want to second what Mimi said here, because the theme of my piece for up now for cafe comms, subscribe at the news site basically says there is a distinction between how we judge the jury and how we can judge the case writ large specifically the prosecutor and the judge.
The jury's verdict has to be respected. It's sacri-sanked and there's a difference between that and criticizing the case you can do both in other words, my position is the jury for the reasons of me said people fled to be away from this jury. It is a difficult job by all accounts this jury was attentive. No problems. The questions they asked were smart and focused and appropriate. They reached a verdict. I give them full credit.
They were the ones who sat there and saw the evidence. I don't think anyone's in position really to say they got it right or wrong. I think this was a case that reasonable people could have seen differently.
12 of them did their job and saw it this way. That's fine. I also think you can say consistent with that that there are lingering questions about the decision to bring this case by the DA not just lingering questions, but still as salient of questions as before about whether the DA should have brought this case, whether it was brought in a fair way, whether the judge should have been there.
Whether the judge should have remained on the case, I know he didn't have to refuse, but I maintain he should have refused. So I think there are still important structural questions that need to be as an affair game here that we can ask while respecting what the jury did. Here more of our conversation in just a moment.
Hi, this is Scott Galloway. I'm Ed Ellison. And we're the hosts, the co-host. It's kind of unfair to call us co-host. I'm really the host. He's my Robin Givens. Let's just be clear on what this is. But anyways, we're the hosts of ProvG Markets, your go-to podcast for all things money. Every Monday we provide brash unfiltered analysis on market moving news, high-flying socks growing sectors, stupid boardroom decisions and master of the University of Os.
And on Thursdays we speak with some of the world's greatest finance professors, Wall Street Insiders and industry experts to keep you informed without getting bored. So if you want to understand money and how you can get more of it, you have to talk about money and we're here to help you do that. Follow ProvG Markets on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts to automatically receive new episodes every Monday and every Thursday.
That's right. The good news is we know how to get you economic security. The bad news is the answer is slowly. We'll tell you how on ProvG Markets. Live time. Old people are always worried about the state of young people. But psychologists Jonathan Height thinks there's a serious case that social media has harmed this generation of kids.
By 2015 everything's different. You're now posting stuff and hoping strangers will like it or follow you. You are not active as much. You don't touch as much. You don't put your arm around any as much. You're not out in nature as much. You don't laugh as much. Here more this week on the gray area. This week on the pitch, when a TikTok trend becomes a startup.
I am the founder of Rogue Curls, the heatless curling headband. Now with only 90 seconds of effort, you can create curls that last five times longer than your curling iron. With zero heat, zero damage and you can do it anytime, anywhere as you can see I'm wearing it right now. I would think and forgive me if I sound kind of cheeky here, but it'd be really easy to rip this off. Oh, yes. We were one of the most counterfeited products on Amazon. Let alone knocked off. That sounds expensive.
So the only person probably on this side of the hemisphere that has a whole thesis around tools in the hair care space. No. Well, what? What? I'm the guy in the room. Nobody wants to hear from the guy about hair. What is your hair? Yeah, go. That's this week on the pitch. Go right now and subscribe to the pitch, wherever you listen to podcasts. I want to go back to something that we've touched on here and just sort of underscore this point.
The jury and Ellie, by the way, I have deference, you know, sort of to the legal and structural questions that you raise. I think that they're important to consider. But for me, the focus today is on the jury and the service that they performed. We've all been really in the position of armchair jurors, right, reading a cold transcript. The jurors were the ones who sat in that room for weeks and listened to every bit of testimony live, saw the witnesses were able to look into their eyes.
Evaluated all of the evidence, apparently deliberated very carefully based on what we know about questions they asked and information that they asked to see. And so when it comes down to the primary function of this trial, deciding the facts, determining if the government met its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think something that we should do that we're not doing enough because we have so many questions is thanking the jury for its service and honoring that service.
It's a tough job. I know a lot of people think that this case could have come out different ways that it was one of those own cases. I don't think we really know because we weren't the jurors. We didn't sit in there and hear everything. What's important is that their determination unanimously every single one of them, including, you know, the juror who saw truth social as their biggest news source.
They were all compelled by this evidence. And I think that's the important point for all of us to focus on. Yeah, I know another lesser point when people talk about this jury and how any jury in Manhattan would be unfair to Donald Trump. This is the place where Donald Trump made his bones, made his fortune, made his fame. He's a creature of an a larger than life citizen, even though he's down in Florida, citizen of New York City.
I mean, Manhattan, I mean, his, his son's claim that he built falsely claimed that he built the New York City skyline. So I don't know in what way shape or form you could say a Manhattan jury is inappropriate to consider the guilt or innocence of one Donald J. Trump. Can I add on to that? So two things. First of all, Joyce, it's so funny because we, if, if jury speculation was a crime, I would be going away for a long time.
You'd be a re-co-defendant. Exactly. Like I'm a serial offender, which I continue to this day. You know, what's such an interesting nuance? There was all that reporting about the juror who follows true social. But if you actually look at the transcript, he's not on true social. He said he follows Trump's true social feed on Twitter, which is very different than that. Which we do too. Yes, totally different. Right. And he also said he follows Michael Cohen and Mueller. She wrote.
I mean, you know, Mueller, she wrote to me is like, that's very, very different. So that's number one. And to Preet's point, I think that again, I think there's an important distinction between was this case charged in the appropriate fair and constitutional place New York County Manhattan? Of course, if it's going to be charged, it has to be charged there. Donald Trump did not get an unconstitutionally unfair jury.
Let me say that it's a better way. Donald Trump got a fair jury here. I also think though you can also agree. I'm actually actually interested what you say. Of course, the orientation of people matters. Of course, they're pre-existing feelings and biases matter. And the hypothetical I would throw out and I don't mean this to be aggressively rhetorical or anything.
I'm actually genuinely wondering like, we'll use joy, joy, joy, and I've discussed this, but let's use Joyce's county in wherever I don't know the name of your county Jefferson County Jefferson County Alabama. I don't know what percent of the vote Trump got there would assume it's over 60 or 70. Don't you think Trump would have had a substantially better chance at a better outcome for him?
Yeah, but you know what? But you know what? Yeah, maybe. But it's unfair. No, right. But I think that, but I think that swallow is up the point. Because who gives a shit? That's the point. That's the best way. Frankly, don't go to a county, right? You know, and in this case, a county in which you made your entire fortune fame and everything else and commit a crime there.
You are right. That is the best way. Do not go to that freaking county and commit a crime because you're going to get the jury that you're going to complain about and why like a stuck pig. I don't have any sympathy. I understand your point, but I have zero sympathy for it. No, I agree with you. I want to go even further Ellie and push back on on the suggestion that Trump would get a favorable jury and Birmingham.
There would be people on that jury undoubtedly something like 80% of them who would have been Trump voters. Maybe Jefferson County where I live is a bad example. But let's just say neighboring Shelby County many people know Shelby County because that's Shelby County versus holder. The big voting rights case.
And that jury would have leaned Trump, but my experience is that jurors listen to and take seriously the instruction that they should decide a case based on the evidence and that they do that virtually all of the time. By the way, to preets point and to both your place, there are cases where prosecutors have a little bit of wiggle room as to where you charge a crime. It doesn't really apply to locals because they have a chart.
There was a change of venue motion brought here. That'll be one issue on appeal. I feel like in the old days it was granted more often. Yeah. I don't remember ever presiding over a case in seven and a half years as you was attorney where there was a successful change of venue motion and Rudy Giuliani when he was used attorney some decades earlier, you know, taking his name and vein.
I believe there are multiple cases. They were brought elsewhere because of fear of undue publicity and everything else. We got one pre. Well, actually this happened before you started, but the god, he jogged, he junior trial, maybe did the first two, I think I did the fourth one. That was charged the fourth time in Florida and junior move to have it transferred up to us. We didn't want it, but it landed on us.
But that was that was because those were those were on different legal grounds. Yeah. Yeah. Before we wrap, can I just say, you know, we are not political commentators. We're not political consultants. We do talk about democracy and how it works in this country and how institutions work in this country. But it seems not right to leave without at least contemplating for a moment the larger question of what this conviction means for the justice system for the rule of law for people's perceptions.
And also for what might happen in November, if anybody wants to take a gander at that. It's hard for me to imagine that being a convict and felon could possibly help someone like Torrey. And so part of me thinks the rational part of me thinks even if it dissuades 1.5% of voters from voting for Trump, that can be decisive and determined in it.
But you know, we've seen we're starting to see these poll numbers that show it's equal or even more people and more likely to support. I'm not sure I believe all those anecdotes aren't great in this, but I just I'm going to read if I can real quick a text that I got from a good friend of mine.
Of course, I won't name this person. He's a very, he's a lawyer, very intelligent person. I'll just read you a couple of things he said me. He wrote, I suspect my reaction as a Republican who loathes Trump and wishes he was not our nominee is similar to those of others who share my views of the man. And I think that's the verdict is ridiculous and I move to rally behind Trump because of it. I hate that I feel this way, but I do.
Again, it's anecdotal, but I've heard that and the and it's sort of consistent with the polling data that we've seen. So we don't know, but that that's my best gander or a political. You know what, Ellie, no offense to your friend, but I'm just going to say anyone who feels the need to rally to a racist misogynistic anti-immigrant convicted felon, who caused a jury has voted to convict him, wanted to buy into that trash anyhow.
I think that there are some people who will do that, but I'm going to rely on the goodness of Americans and the polling data that says that there are just enough people, you know, folks in the middle, independence, who will be compelled because a jury. You know, this is not merit garland. This is not a democratic witch hunt. This is a jury of 12 of Donald Trump's peers in Manhattan, who listened to the evidence and found him guilty.
I think that the American people are basically good or at least enough of us are good that he will lose in November because of this, because of dogs, because of the other really in many ways atrocities that he's brought about for the American system of government. He may well lose and the conviction may well contribute to that, but I think you're simply imposing your view of Donald Trump on this person and on tens of millions of others.
And look, I personally you all know I tend to I think that there's an objective truth that says that if you want to support the criminal, that's just a justification for having wanted to be there all along. I don't think that those people are rally to support Donald Trump. I disagree with you. Why would this why would my friend lie to me, Joyce? I disagree with you. I think you're trying to impose your hatred for Trump on other people who don't feel that way.
And this guy hates Trump. He thinks Trump said loathsome and trust me, I get texts from all the time, but this case and the way it was brought and handled has offended him in a way that's bothering him even. I don't think you can. You're and I get my question, Ellie, that's a fan. And really felt but you can't just be other people over the head with it. What's offensive about the criminal justice system? I guess is the question that I would want an answer.
Well, this gets into the subject of my note today about the decision to bring this charge the way the charge was structured the handling of it by the judge, etc. And there's some irony in all this. I don't pretend to know anything about your friend. I do find it peculiar that you would be in the position of hating Donald Trump not wanting to be the next president, not wanting him to be the nominee for your party.
But this particular thing causes you to rethink all of that and change your view of who should command the armed forces and be the commander and chief and be the leader of our country, particularly when by the way, Donald Trump.
It's not directly relevant, but people have pointed out the fact that on other criminal justice matters, you know, Donald Trump was supportive of execution took a full page ad in a paper. I think the New York Times supporting the execution for the Central Park five who are unjustly accused. So it's a little bit rich for anyone to talk about. I mean, not a little bit rich, but really rich for anyone to talk about, you know, the scandal or alleged tragedy of Donald Trump being railroaded.
Given how he's talked about criminal justice issues before in the jurisdiction, where he made his fame and his fortune as I've said, but is your is your view that if somebody has done and set out rages things they have waved their right to go to complain that the system is no, no, no, I think it is a cute and again, maybe there are a lot of people like your friend, I would.
I mean, do you think Mitch McConnell now now will route I mean, I guess I guess they do is a political matter they have to support him because that's what the base wants.
But the solution or the consequence of feeling that there was an unfair trial brought upon someone who otherwise politically despise and you think it's unfit. I mean, I don't know if your friend thinks this. I mean, I guess the point is, I don't take seriously his position, this unknown friend that he thought Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency.
And how being convicted by jury, you know, in the eyes of many fair and square transforms an unfit person for the presidency into a fit person who deserves your support. I don't follow that. I don't follow that. That's why he said he hates that he feels. And let me, I know we all started. Let me do one thing. I tend to agree with both of you are not entirely, but both of your personal views on Donald Trump as you just expressed.
But I disagree with your approach to how others should view him. I guess I don't think I don't think we can just, you know, I totally understand. I totally understand how people who support Donald Trump and think he's the second coming. Think that this was unfair and will be more supportive of him. I don't understand how people who have rejected him and think he's unfit if that's the position.
Now suddenly think he is transformed into fitness because he was convicted by Manhattan, right? That is that is nonsensical to me. A criminal conviction does not make you a better candidate or a better person. Traditionally, yeah. Everyone should listen to the recent podcast I did with Frank Brooney called the age of grievance. This is a prime example of that. Everyone is agreed. And if you can turn grievance into a political cause, that's bad for the country, I think.
And I think that's the point, by the way, we're arguing about this, you know, specific friend in his reaction. But what it's really a marker for is what American politics have become and how we've really been subjected to the grievance of this one man who anytime he faces a set back, it's the result of unfairness or fraud or people who are out to get him. And that's what I think is really troubling is that at this point, anyone who previously saw through it would rally behind that banner.
I hope that as a country, we're better than that and that this conviction teaches us that it is possible to hold even Donald Trump accountable. I think we need to end there. Mimi Roca, Joyce Vance, Ellie Hondie. Thanks so much. We'll be talking about this. I'm sure for a long time to come. Thanks so much. Thanks guys. Great talking to you. Thanks for having me. Great to be with you. Bye, y'all.
Thanks for listening to this special episode of Stay Tuned. Joyce Vance and I will continue to analyze Trump's conviction and discuss this historic moment in US history on next week's episode of the Cafe Insider podcast. To listen, sign up at cafe.com slash insider. You can try the membership for just $1 for one month. That's cafe.com slash insider. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show.
Send me your questions about news, politics and justice. Tweet them to me at Prit Barara with the hashtag AskPreet. You can also now reach me on threads or you can call and leave me a message at 669 247 7338. That 669 24Preet or you can send an email to letters at cafe.com. Stay tuned is presented by Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper.
The technical director is David Tattashor. The deputy editor is Celine Roar. The editorial producer is Noah Azalai. The associate producer is Cloudy Hernandez. And the cafe team is Matthew Billy, Nat Weiner and Jake Kaplan. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I'm your host, Prit Barara. Stay tuned.