This is an NBC News Now special, the Trump Hush Money Trial Verdict. From NBC News headquarters in New York, here's Tom Yamis. Hey, good evening. We are coming to you live tonight at this unprecedented moment in American history. For the first time ever, a former United States President has been convicted of a felony. Former President Donald Trump found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. To cover up Hush Money payments, made to Stormy Daniels, ahead of the 2016 election. The 12 members of the New York jury voting unanimously to convict. It was a stunning moment late today in Lower Manhattan, as that verdict was read just after 5:00 PM. There are no cameras allowed inside that courtroom, Shortly after the former President emerging, his face stoic, his tone defiant, delivering this message to the reporters gathered in the hallway and to the nation he once served as Commander in Chief. This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. It's a rigged trial, a disgrace. They wouldn't give us a venue change. We were at 5% or 6% in this district, in this area. This was a rigged, disgraceful trial.

But the real verdict is going to be November fifth by the people, and they know what happened here, and everybody knows what happened here. You have a sore respect DA and the whole thing. We didn't do a thing wrong. I'm a very innocent man, and it's okay. I'm fighting for our country. I'm fighting for our Constitution. Our whole country is being rigged right now. This was done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt an opponent, a political opponent. I think it's just a disgrace. And we'll keep fighting. We'll fight till the end and we'll win because our country has gone to hell. We don't have the same country anymore. We have a divided mess. We're a nation in decline, serious decline. Millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now from prisons and from mental institutions, terrorists, and they're taking over our country. We have a country that's in big trouble. But this was a rigged decision right from day one with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case. Ever. We will fight for our Constitution. This is long from over. Thank you very much.

A reminder, this case was brought by the Manhattan DA's office, not the Justice Department. Trump's sentencing set for July 11th, where he could face a minimum sentence of probation or up to four years in prison. July 11th, importantly, just four days before the Republican National Convention, where Donald Trump is expected to formerly become the Republican nominee for President. Again, this is something we have never before seen in this country. The jury of seven men and five women dismissed following the announcement of the verdict, which they reach after nine and a half hours of deliberation. All eyes then on former President Trump as his motorcade, you see it here, made its way from the courthouse where he has spent much of the last six weeks to his home at Trump Tower. Then this, Trump greeted by a small group of cheering supporters there, raising his fist as he acknowledged the crowd before walking into Trump Tower, which is, of course, the same location where prosecutors said Trump had a fateful meeting with his fixer, Michael Michael Cohen, who would become the star witness in this case. Prosecutors say Cohen paid adult film star Stormy Daniels hush money to keep an affair with Trump's secret ahead of the 2016 election, then falsified business records to cover up his tracks to influence that election.

The jury clearly buying that story. Cohen, tonight in a statement writing, Today is an important day for accountability and the rule of law. While it has been a difficult journey for me and my family, the truth always matters. Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who brought the charges against Trump, acknowledging the gravity of this case shortly after the verdict was reached. While this defendant may be unlike any other in American history, we arrived at this trial, and ultimately today at this verdict in the same manner as every other case that comes to the courtroom doors, by following the facts and the law, and doing so without fear or favor. As we've said, Trump, not the He's the only first former President to be found guilty of a felony, but also the first major presidential candidate to be convicted of a felony. The big question tonight, how will this conviction play with voters as Trump faces off with President Biden yet again? Could it actually help the former President retake the White House by rallying his base? We'll break down what the polling says a little later. The Biden campaign seizing on the verdict to call voters to action, writing in a statement, In New York today, we saw that no one is above the law.

Today's verdict does not change the fact that the American people face a simple reality. There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the oval office at the ballot box. Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for President. This jury may have just reelected President Trump, but they may have just reelected President Biden. Or a third reality could be true. It might not matter at all. We've got a full team of reporters, legal experts, and political analysts here to break it all down for you. I want to start first with our NBC News reporters who have been covering this trial from the beginning. Nbc news senior legal Correspondent, Laura Jarrett, Senior Washington Correspondent, Halley Jackson, and Tom Winter here to get us started. Laura, for our viewers who might have missed it, I want to go back to that moment when you read the verdict out loud in front of the cameras, live on television. Brett, roll that clip. Here we go. Count one, guilty. Count two, guilty. Count three, guilty. Count four, guilty. Count five, guilty. Count six, guilty. Laura, as you're reading that, and I felt for you because I know you're thinking in your head, I hope we're right.

I hope we're right. I hope we're right. I hope we're right because the entire nation is watching. What were you thinking as you were reading that? I was thinking, I know that we're right because Tom Winter was the man in the courtroom in that seat who I knew was going to get it right and who I trusted. I'm reading this from millions of people, Tom. Please make sure you're in the Google Doc in the right place. It was one of those moments where we were tap dancing for a little bit, knowing that the verdict is coming, but I'm looking at the sheet, trying to make sure we're on top of it, trying to make sure that we're being accurate. And so as soon as I saw that first G, knowing that it was guilty, I had to interrupt to make sure that everyone could understand what was happening, which is a surreal moment because we've all covered high-profile trials so many times. We've done dozens and dozens of these. Nothing is ever like this. And the stakes are so high, and we just want to make sure that we're obviously being as accurate and as fair as possible in every case, but particularly given these circumstances.

And then is it hitting you that a former president is being convicted in real-time and you're reading this? Yes, although I try not to think about it too hard and get in my head about it and try to just play it as straight as possible. As you could see there, there was no color commentary. There was no my interpretation of everything. It was just straight doing the counts. We did that on purpose so people understand. We did that intentionally just to be as clear and concise as possible in that moment. Tom, you were eyes and ears inside the courtroom because there were no cameras. Talk to me and explain to the viewers how does that work? Because I know when you guys went in there, you weren't sure what was going to happen? You weren't expecting the verdict at first when everyone was being summoned, and then suddenly you're typing away and it's going right over to Laura. Well, we were initially told that the juror is going to go home for the day. The former President, the presumptive Republican nominee, is sitting there with his attorneys, and they're laughing and they're talking because It's just going to be another day.

We're going to move on till tomorrow. All of a sudden, the judge comes back, very different demeanor, and says, I have to tell you, we got a note at 4:20. The jurors have told us there's a verdict. They need a little more time to fill out those forms, but we're coming back. That was an immediate 180 in the courtroom. It was quiet. We have to respect the process. We're there purely as observers. But all of a sudden, you can hear the air conditioning. You could hear just a few little clacks of the keyboard. You have your laptop, your phone. How are you communicating? So I bet you don't know where you were on March 20th, 2004, for anybody on this panel. But I remember because that was the verdict for the United States versus Martha Stewart. That's the first case that I covered for this company and in this business. And back then, we had to hold up placards through a window, through an internal courtyard at federal court, to somebody who had been on a pay phone since seven in the morning, and this was after lunch, holding a pay phone, holding the line on our 1-800 number here at MBC to tell the control room what was going on.

Then the rest of us had to walk out with the same placard to make sure everybody knew what the verdict was. Much more modern today. Microsoft surface, Google Doc, and basically just typing in one of three letters. That's what was. And then from there, we have the ability to mirror that across all of our control rooms, most importantly to the person reading it on the air. When it was guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, people stunned, quiet, what was the reaction in the courtroom? Absolutely quiet. You never know. Laura and I were talking about it earlier this evening. You cover these cases, you get into it, you start reading the juror instructions, you think of all the permutations that could happen, and you start to wonder, will it be a guilty verdict? Will there be a not guilty verdict? How's this all going to go? And then it comes out, and it's just what you might have thought it was going to be going into it, given the composition of the jury, the type of case it was, what was coming forward. The fact this always throws everybody off, the reading of a verdict is always very fast.

There's a lot of tension in the courtroom. There's a lot of energy. One of the courtroom staff says, Count two, guilty immediately by the jury foreperson, and then they just go from there. They're just ticking right on down the tracks. Halley, as we're looking at the video and I'm watching the stills that were coming out of court afterwards, and former President Trump, defiant with his fist up. We're looking at a man that was on trial. We're also looking at a man that is running for President. Let's talk about the politics of this, and we're going to go back to the case as well, because the big question is this. I'm listening to Tom, I'm listening to Laura. It's all so dramatic. We've been following it as journalists for the last six weeks, but the only question tonight is, does it move the needle? Yeah, and we don't have an answer for that yet. Just to be totally candid, here's what we do know. We're paying a lot of attention to it. About a third of Americans, based on polling, say they really aren't paying much attention to it. They are tonight, I'm willing to bet, because this is news that would, of course, break through, I think.

But about two-thirds to three-quarters of voters say that this previously had said, a conviction wouldn't change their minds, that it wouldn't change their vote one way or the other. The question is going to be, what happens with some of these voters, especially, and we're looking at independence, because they're going to be critical here, especially the slice of independents, anywhere from maybe 10 to 20 plus % who say that they might be less likely to vote for the former President if he were to be convicted. Hypotheticals are different than reality. We now have reality. Donald has been convicted on these 34 felony counts. You're seeing some of the numbers here. It's interesting in this most recent poll, I think this is the NPR Marist poll. It is. It is 15% upper left, upper right-hand corner of independents say they're more likely to vote for Trump if he were convicted. This is obviously a good poll. The numbers are good. We've seen a little bit of that. I think the more important number might be the others on the bottom of the screen there. It makes no difference for 65% of Democrats, Republicans, and about 75% of independents.

All of this said, a lot is going to depend on how these candidates handle this moving forward, both of these candidates, specifically. I think it's worth noting how you've seen the Republican Party really fall in line, even tonight, behind former President Trump coming out on the cable networks, these people who are on the shortlist for Running Mate speaking out now on his behalf, lining up behind it. Even Senator Mitch McDonald, who is no fan of Donald Trump these days, suggesting that he believes, just in the last few minutes, that this is going to be, in his view, overturned on appeal. I'll leave it to the legal experts to assess that. But the fact that he is even weighing in, albeit hours later, I think is notable here. Laura, the jury instructions were a little complicated. Understanding what was happening, what the crime was, was a little complicated. Talk to me about the three moments for our viewers. What were the three moments that made this case? The three moments that made this case, I think, were one of the first moments, which was David Pecker. Remember, he is the tabloid boss, the head of the National Enquiry.

He is the one who puts the former president in the room where it happens, where prosecutors had said this conspiracy to suppress bad stories. Where the plot was hatched. Exactly. Because he puts Trump in the room, Michael Cohen, the former fixer, then carries it to the oval. Those were the two signposts. It was interesting that the jury asked for readbacks of those two men. That was the testimony When I heard that they wanted rebacks of those testimony, that told me they have passed the falsification of business records, right? That was the core charge, is that he doctored his business records to cover up the conspiracy. But if they want to hear from Pecker, that means they want to hear about the conspiracy. They've already decided something on the falsification. We didn't know yet that they had found he had committed the falsification of business records. But I do think that was one of the key moments. Obviously, Michael Cohen was a huge moment. Stormy Daniels was a huge moment, and those were the three big witnesses. There was obviously Hope Hicks. It was a round-robin of different people in Trump's orbit. But I do think at the end of the day, everyone thought of Cohen as the star witness.

I think it was Pecker the whole time. Was there one big mistake that stands out to you? Was Was it the last witness? Was it the defense, plain to the jury, but plain to Trump? I think it was Cohen. I think they put all their eggs in the Cohen basket, and they were so just hungry to damage him and to beat him up and to call him the MVP of liars, to call him the gloat, the greatest liar of all time. They put so much emphasis into that that if the jury thought, You know what? I understand why he's angry. Trump dropped him like a hot potato when the feds came calling. That's what- And it didn't pay him. It didn't pay him. If they put all their eggs in Cohen basket, then if the jurors thought like, No, I can get it. I can get on board with Cohen, then what case does he have? I don't believe him all the time, but I believe him this time. Tom, what do you want to say? Well, I was going to say, what's interesting about this case is the FBI first opened their investigation into these payments in the middle of 2007.

The fact that Stormy Daniels received a payment, this Michael Cohen character, this Michael Pekker character, what was the National Enquiry doing? We've heard about this for a long time. What will be interesting to me to merge a little bit of the political and the legal worlds here If we ever do get to the other two federal criminal trials that are pending for the former President, likelihood, probably not very high. But when the public starts to hear and viewers start to hear about the details in those cases, will those make an impact versus this case where I think some of the facts, even though some of the testimony, Laura, was certainly interesting and some of it was new, I think the general fact pattern here was well known. Halley, I'm going to ask you a question. You may not have the answer, but I'm looking at your crystal ball. We've had E. Jean Carroll, we've had this civil case. We've had so many cases and things that have happened to former President Trump. Will we be talking about this in October? Well, based on where the numbers are right now, the things that voters want to talk about are the economy and immigration.

They want to talk about inflation, and they want to talk about the border. They've been very consistent about that, that those are the issues motivating them to the ballot box. It's been interesting. We have this amazing team of Nbeds, these campaign reporters that are out in the field, and all night, they've been gathering interviews with people in these key string states in Arizona and in Pennsylvania, and it has It's fascinating to look at because what you're seeing is so much of the reaction tonight falling along party lines, frankly, from people, Trump supporters who say, this doesn't change my opinion, Biden supporters who say, I'm glad justice is done. There's obviously nuance in that as well. But I do think I think that's been a super interesting piece of this year. I also think, listen to Tom's point here, there are other cases, other legal issues that the former President faces that legal experts think are more serious, that could be potentially more damaging to him. It is unlikely that those come to bear before the election. We're waiting, you know this well, our justice correspondent, for the Supreme Court to make a case, a ruling on the immunity claim that he's made in his federal election interference case, TBD, probably before the end of June or early July.

The Florida Classified Documents case is wrapped up in these procedural motions, et cetera. The next hearing on that isn't for a couple of months. Same thing for Georgia, where they're set to hear in August, the former president's claim that the prosecutor... Appealing a claim that the prosecutor shouldn't be bringing the case against him. All of which is to say we are months away from those other cases. So does this have legs. I am pretty sure that the Biden campaign is going to use this not to point to the legal issues, but to say this is the character of the person you're electing because they have tried to press the character case against Donald Trump, the drama case. Do you really want this guy back in office for four more years? Remember what this is like as part of a broader messaging campaign. We're going to be discussing all of that throughout this broadcast. Halley, Tom, Laura, great job. I know some of you guys are sticking around. We'll talk to you guys more in just a moment because we want to go now to Trump Tower Live. Von Hillier is down there. Von, I know you've made your way from the courthouse to Trump Tower.

Talk to me about the scene tonight. I was hearing mixed reports. There's supporters, there's protesters. What exactly is happening? And then the former President apparently had dinner plans tonight. Right. Just to give folks an idea of where Trump Tower is at. It's Fifth Avenue in 56th Street here in Midtown Manhattan. We're about four blocks from Central Park. This is a very highly trafficked area on most nights. We got about a dozen of his supporters that are out here, a lot of other bypassers that are coming around here. For Donald Trump, he is currently on the upper east side of New York at a dinner fundraiser. He'll be returning to Trump Tower tonight for the night before tomorrow, having a press conference at 11 AM Eastern Time here from Trump Tower. You saw that he delivered those short remarks upon leaving the courthouse following his conviction there. But for Donald Trump, this is just beginning. He's got five months until the general election, Tom. Do we also know that the former president is going to have a press conference tomorrow discussing some of the trial? Do we know anything more about that? We don't have specifics on what his intention is, but for anybody that follows his social media post over the last 2 hours, he has given a pretty good vindication of where this is going to go, not only saying that he will be appealing the decision from Lower Manhattan today, but also that November fifth is going to be the real verdict day.

November fifth, of course, is 159 days away, and that is the general election for Donald Trump. His fate today was determined on these 34 felony counts by 12 New York jurors. But for Donald Trump, he has every contention of making this ultimately a decision that comes down to the public court of opinion. For him, that means going on the campaign trail, hitting the TV airwaves, and going making his own case. Because the reality is that the justice system played out how it did here this evening, but he's got an election on his hands. We should note, though, Tom, that his sentencing is slated to take place on July 11th, four days before the beginning of the Republican National Convention, when he is slated to be formally nominated as the Republican nominee. That will be a very decisive time, and there could very well be jail time as part of that punishment. Of course, if he was elected, we would expect that the prison time to be suspended. Until after he were to serve. But it only raises the stakes, as conviction does, of what is going to be coming on November fifth, again, 159 days from now in the general election, Tom.

Von Hilliard for us, Von. We appreciate all your reporting. For more on this verdict and to dig a little bit more into the legalities I want to bring in Adam Kaufman. He's a former assistant district attorney with the Manhattan district Attorney's office. Michael Van der Veen, a former Trump lawyer and criminal defense attorney, and Lanie Davis, Michael Cohen's former lawyer and legal advisor. Lanie, I'm going to start with you. Have You had a chance to speak with Michael Cohen tonight? Even if you haven't, talk to us about his headspace. He was called the greatest liar of all time. He was trashed by the Trump defense team, and he stood there for hours testifying. What does today mean for him? So first of all, I haven't talked to him. I'm no longer his lawyer, and I want to focus on the evidence, but I have said many, many times, Michael Cohen was found to be truthful under tough cross-examination in front of New York Supreme Court Judge, Angaran, in the financial fraud case. And the judge wrote that he was credible and truthful. And the tactic of using the entire defense to shout names in a courtroom when they're not evidence and not provide any counter to documents that do not lie means that this verdict was a verdict based on the facts and the documents.

Michael, you represented former President Trump. You worked with him. How hard is it to work with him? Because some people have said that Todd Blanch, he had a case to present to the jury, but he also had a case to present to his client, former President Trump, and that can be difficult. Yeah, I'm not sure how much I really make of that. My experience was that he was a very good client. He was easy to work with. I found him, first of all, to be a pretty humorous guy. He seemed intent on giving you what he thought were the important points that he wanted to make. But he gave us a free in, both in the impeachment trial and then in the Manhattan trial. Well, I ask you about that because some people said that maybe Blanche had some missteps in the closing arguments and bringing up people like Bob Costello. In trying to relitigate Stormy Daniels. That those were missed opportunities. I don't know. I thought Blanche did a good job. I thought he's a very good lawyer. I think he did a good job. Frankly, this is a historic trial. What he was able to accomplish in this trial was much more important to him than, Am I going to get another case from Donald Trump?

He's in the history books. But he lost the case. He did lose the case, but he defended the case in a way that I think was probably much more motivated by, What's the best defense that I can put on rather than, Hey, I'm going to please my client. We all usually have conflicts with our clients, and there are a lot of disagreements. But there are only two decisions in this case that were Donald Trump's and Donald Trump's alone. That was to plea not guilty, and that was to Testify or Not. Otherwise, he has input into the case, and the lawyer has input in the case. Those are his decisions. That second decision probably had an effect on this trial. Adam, was this case winnable for the defense? It's really a hard case to win. But it's untested legal theory. But that's a different issue, right? There's the issue of it's an untested legal theory. The jury doesn't know and doesn't care that it's an untested legal theory. They don't know that. What they hear is the evidence in the courtroom. You look at the documents, and I agree, Cohen was well generated, and that's so important in a case like this.

But so the legal theory, the untested nature of it, that's going to be an issue that might be hashed out on appeal, but not in the courtroom. I'm just trying to understand because in looking at this case, there were key witnesses that never showed up to trial, that were never called by either side, including Alan Weiselberg. The man... Go ahead. Weiselberg tested in our trial. Weiselberg didn't testify because Weiselberg has showed 100% support and loyalty to the President. So he wasn't going to take the stand and say anything that the prosecutors wanted the jury to hear. Weiselberg was gone to jail twice for his loyalty and would have been willing to go a third time if somebody thought, again, oh, he perjured himself and we're going to charge him again. Laine, you worked with Michael Cohen. You were his lawyer. Michael Cohen obviously has a reputation that can debated by both sides. Do you think that Michael Cohen has finally received justice? I mean, he did a hard time. He defended Donald Trump till the end until he didn't. His family was put through so much, and now Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Look, I'm a former lawyer for Michael, so I just have to follow certain rules and not comment about Michael.

But I can say what I've previously said. Every word that he testified to was backed up by documents, including Mr. Weiselberg, who wrote down $130,000 multiplied it by two to take care of income taxes. And yet Donald Trump's defense was that number was legal fees. If you lie about that number being about legal fees, when everybody, certainly the jury and everybody knew that number was about Stormy Daniels, that's the end of the defense. You lie about legal fees, then the conspiracy can be believed by the jury that he knew he wasn't paying legal fees to Stormy Daniels. He lied and recorded them as legal fees. That, to me, is the logic of the jury looking at that document, and that document speaks for itself. Weiselberg was the most important witness against Mr. Trump because of his own handwriting and what I just said. Reasonable doubt. They needed one juror. They couldn't get there. I don't know if you can describe the jurors getting to this verdict in a fast manner. It seemed fast to me. I didn't go to law school. I bring all this up because it sounds like the prosecutors convinced the jury easily.

Because they got back. They wanted to hear the instructions once again, and it was unanimous on all the counts. My question to you, Adam, because you guys were talking about the defense, was the case winnable or was it Was it over from the get-go? Look, any time a criminal case goes to trial, as defense attorneys, we know it's difficult for the defense. The prosecution gets up there, they put on their case, and most criminal cases that go to trial end up as convictions. The prosecution did a great job. I think there were some missteps by the defense. I think that I would have talked more about the fact that Weiselberg wasn't called. Why wasn't he called? He's the one, right? I think that putting on... One thing to think about is the defense doesn't have any burden, and so they can sit back and do nothing and just poke holes at the people's, the prosecution's case. When they put on a witness, now it gives the jury something to balance, something to weigh. If you're going to put on a case, it's got to be more than Castello, because now you're putting... You go from having nothing, and the jury just has to focus on the prosecution case, and then you put something up there.

It's so feather-light that now the jury is weighing the two sides. Michael, would you put up more of a defense? Witness-wise, you mean? Witness-wise, case-wise, I mean? Probably not. Generally, in a criminal defense case, it's the government's burden, and you don't put on too many defense witnesses. It's cross-examination. We make our living on cross and closing. We don't do a lot of direct examinations. But I want to tell you, a year ago, we did a mock jury trial on our trial, and we did deep dive jury questionnaires and evaluation of the Manhattan jury pool. Eight and a half out of 10 people had very strong feelings against the President. The other one and a half just didn't like him. It was hard to win a case in Manhattan, is what you're saying? Yeah, it was hard to win a case in Manhattan, but I have such faith in the jury system. I mean, it really is the best system that we have. I'm a little disheartened because the presumption of innocence and that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. From when it was first written to where it is now is really eroded. We only have 30 seconds.

Does he have a chance for an appeal? I think he's got a couple of issues on appeal. Absolutely. Yeah? Yeah. In the jury instructions, probably there's some issues on appeal, some of the trial evidence that came in. There's a couple of issues there that will be interesting. Okay, guys, we thank you so much for being here. Our coverage of this historic verdict is just getting started. When we come back, the political fallout of Trump's guilty conviction, will it hurt or help his re-election bid? And what does it mean for the Biden campaign? Will they change course? Stay with us. I'm disappointed that it's come down to a court in New York to paint it exactly how the Democrats would like it. But I think a lot of people are smart enough to see through some of this. I was just very excited to see that people are still willing to vote for democracy and be willing to confront somebody so large and in charge. In the long run, it might hurt them. Judging by everything. A lot of people say your past doesn't matter, but in certain situations, Yes. Yeah. Your past, it does matter.

That's your resume for you. Yeah, ethically, I would want to vote for a president that is ethically upright, and I can't say the same for either president right out, which makes me incredibly uncomfortable. I'm really not sure what to do at this moment. I'm not looking forward to the elections. And that was a reaction from voters across the country. We're speaking to our reporters after former President Trump was found guilty by a New York jury of 34 counts of falsifying business records. This verdict coming against the backdrop of the 2024 election, which rests right now on a razor's edge. For more of the political fallout from former President Trump's conviction, I want to bring in our political pros tonight. Jen Saki, former Biden White House Press Secretary and an MSNBC anchor, and Hogan Giddley, former White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary during the Trump administration. Thank you both for being here. Jen, I want to start with you. If you had the President's here tonight and you're talking about the campaign. What advice do you give him about this conviction? How can they use this to their advantage, or they can't? I actually think the statement they gave was exactly the right tone.

It was this short, We respect the rule of law and have no additional comment. Now, they left it to the campaign. The campaign put out a much longer statement. The key line in this is there is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the oval office at the ballot box. I think what's important about their strategy at this point, if you're in the White House or you're in the campaign, what you're trying to manage is this is not a moment for cheering. This is not a moment for celebrating campaign staff, White House staff, others, even people who strongly dislike President Trump. This is a serious moment where the former President of the United States was convicted on 34 counts. What I would advise What's him to do is to keep focused on the range of issues that the American public is focused on. You have a debate coming up. There are lots of issues to debate out there, abortion rights, the economy, climate, etc. Does that speak to the post-Trump presidency era we live in Or do you think that's just the nature of this campaign? Because we just had this historical moment.

A former president was convicted of a crime, and you're essentially saying that happened, but we got to focus on everything else. I think voters are going to make a choice. You heard there's a smattering of views from the voters that your reporters and our reporters talk to, which tells you a lot. People don't know how to digest this. They don't know what to make of it yet. The politics of it, I think, are quite unpredictable at this moment. There's a range of polls that have been out there, which shows that a very small percentage of people who were asked who are Trump supporters would consider changing their mind. Now that consider- And some independents that would actually help Trump. It's a range. Now, the election is going to be decided in about seven states by a small number of voters. If some people do, that will make a difference. But I think if you're the Biden team, it's about not dancing on this. This is going to happen on its own, and you have to go back to seizing the moment and talking about the issues that a lot of people care deeply about. Hogan, you told me yesterday an acquittal would be the best case scenario.

This is the exact opposite of this. This is, I think, a B plus bad-It's the worst case scenario. B plus bad, plus terrible, to quote succession. Is this a bad day for the campaign, or is this in some weird way a good day for the campaign? Well, look, it's a long time between now and November. Obviously, a lot of things are going to happen. And Jen is absolutely right. The Biden folks need to be worried about the issues at hand here because Donald Trump, while this will be a bump in the road, no doubt, they're going to have their day tomorrow when Trump comes out and addresses the American people. He will. But if he continues to make this about those issues, that's what the campaign is going to be about. You touched on something, Jen, you're right. A sliver of votes here. We're talking about the last election being decided by three states, 42,000 votes. That's it. And so the margins here are going to matter. What happened today is big. It is historic. But how that shakes out between now and November, time will tell. But I still think it comes down to the issues that everyone cares about.

You played some clips from people out there with different opinions about this, but it comes down to, Can I pay for my car? Can I pay for my rent? Can I pay for my mortgage? Can I buy gas? Can I buy groceries? Those are the things that people are going to care about and vote on in November. Jen, is there a danger here if you go back to 2016, where It was Trump coverage all the time, and Hillary Clinton could not get a word in edgewise. Look, I'm not saying that's the reason why she lost the election, but that did happen. That was a reality. It's happening right now. President Biden, he was just working, trying to get the black vote yesterday with Vice President Harris. That got minimal attention because this sucked up all the oxygen. Is there also a danger in this? It's a huge challenge for them. I think that's why they did the stunt with Robert De Niro the other day was to try to inject themselves into the coverage. They did that. They have a couple of audiences here. One of them is the base of the Democratic Party. That's one of the biggest challenges the Biden campaign has right now, and opportunities, too, is bringing those voters home.

Voters need to know that there's life in the campaign. That's why they did that, I think, to inject themselves. They want to show some teeth, essentially. They want to show some teeth and some passion. I will just say, though, I think one of the things you said, Trump has not shown, at least from what I've watched, and you can disagree with me, that's fine, any desire to talk about issues other other than this trial. He's dove into this trial. They're fundraising all the way. He'll inject the border. He'll inject wars in his comments. We'll see what happens in the next couple of weeks. We all have to watch that. But he has been running on the trial and as being the victim. I think a question to me is, does he break out of that and start to talk about other issues or not? He hasn't too much to date. Yeah, but yes, he does, and yes, he will. But he's not the only victim here. He would argue the American people are the victim because of the policies that they're being kicked in the deep. I don't think he's a victim. I think the legal system worked its way through.

I'm saying he's campaigning as that. I'm saying he's going to campaign as that. He's also going to say the American people are also victims because you're seeing drugs pouring into our communities, a wide open Southern border, crime. Obviously, the economy is in shambles. That's what the campaign will be about, and that's the debate. Starting from this moment moving forward, what Donald Trump focuses on will absolutely have to do with some weaponization pieces of the federal government and three-letter agencies because he feels as though he's a victim of that. But a lot of people in this country feel they're victims of the same thing in various forms in fashion. That's going to be part of it. But Joe Biden, while he does want to talk about issues, he rarely himself talks about issues that poll in the top three. He doesn't talk about immigration. He doesn't talk about the economy much. He's out there trying to court Black voters. It's almost June. You're trying to get your base and solidify your base. And Jen rightly point out, he has a real problem with that at this point. Trump has the base and has had it for the whole year.

So it's tough for Biden to have to spend time, effort, money doing that at this point. Jen, does the Biden-Harris re-elect team, do they have to explain to voters that this wasn't our case, okay? This was the Manhattan DA, this was not politics, or that's just a waste of time? I think they do that in part by how they handle it, right? There were some reports that are wrong that President Biden was going to give a speech or something. That was out there from the White House, right? It sounded like a strange move. That doesn't seem to be what their plan was. They recognize from talking to them that he's going to have to respond to this at some point in time. The reporter will yell a question at him, something along those lines. I think the statement today from them, which was so limited, it was about the rule of law and respect of the rule of law, is sending the message of the seriousness of this moment. This is a jury of 12 peers. This is how our legal system works, our justice system works. I think that will be continued to be their emphasis from the White House.

Does this become part of the debate? I mean, does he use this as a strategy to get under Trump's skin in the debate and call him a felon, say he was convicted, saying he was the first President to go down? I think that that's part of what they're going discuss over the coming weeks. I would be very surprised if Joe Biden calls Donald Trump a convicted felon on the debate stage. It's not his style, right? I think what he would go to is values and rule of law, and I'm a candidate who respects the rule of law. But I also think what they're going to want to talk about on the debate stage is more issues like abortion rights and abortion access. Some of the issues, to your point, Tom, that haven't broken through. That if you look at the polling, 20% of the public in the recent New York Times poll blamed Joe Biden for the overturning of dobs, right? They have other areas and other business they need to do in that debate. I don't think he calls him a convicted felon. I think he finds a way to wink at his legal challenges and his disrespect for the rule of law.

Chen Saki, Hogan Giddly, always I always love talking with you guys, and I always love when you guys are civil. This is always great. This is great. You guys are always friendly. Boxing gloves are out there. Okay, we're going to keep it going here. There are still several criminal cases against the former President hanging the balance. Where do those cases stand? Much more of our NBC News special when we come right back. All right, we're back now with an NBC News Now special, history made inside a New York courtroom. A jury finding former President Trump guilty of falsifying business records in connection to hush money payments. The verdict making Trump the first former President to ever be convicted of felony crimes. The jury handing down that stunning conviction, guilty on all 34 counts after just nine and a half hours of deliberations. Seven men, five women, siding with the prosecution, affirming Trump played a role in a cover up to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. After the verdict, Trump greeting a massive crowd. You see him here outside Trump Tower, raising his hand and announcing he will hold the news conference at 11 AM Eastern tomorrow morning.

Judge Morshan is setting a July 11th sentencing date, just four days ahead of the Republican National Convention, where the GOP is set to select him as their nominee for President. But the President still has other legal issues that are being worked out. We're going to break it all down. Remember, this trial is out of New York, and it's not the only criminal case the former President faces. He may face as many as three more, with one in Georgia and two at the federal level up in the air right now. Most legal experts say those cases are far from serious for Mr. Trump. The thing is, those three are delayed big time right now to the point that they may not even start until after the election. We're going to have to wait and see. For more on these cases and what happens next, I want to bring in our good friends again. Nbc's new senior legal correspondent, Laura Jarrett, and NBC news legal analyst, Danny Savalas. Laura, I'm going to start with you because I want to make sure our viewers understand What's next in this case? Could Trump possibly be behind bars? Next in this case, we're going to go to sentencing.

As you laid out on July 11th, Judge Mershawn is going to bring everybody in. If he is in the driver's seat there, he made very clear to this jury, Don't think about a prison sentence. I don't have to even prescribe a prison sentence. I'm going to do this. It's totally within my discretion to do anything from probation to four years in prison. We should make clear, because it's a low-level felony, four years is the max. That's as high as it's going to go, and he doesn't stack it. Even though it was 34 counts, it's just four years, period. But there's no guarantee he's going to get those four years, right? He doesn't have any criminal history. He's approaching 80 years old. I think the judge might be inclined to give him something more on the lower end. But I also recognize, and you and I have talked about, this is a person who the judge thinks, these are not my words, the judge thinks flouted the law. He thinks he's had multiple violations of this gag order. He threatened to throw him behind bars before, and he didn't do it. He said, Please don't make me do I recognize the truth of former President and current front runner.

Please don't make me do this. I think that moment on July 11th is just going to be another one for the history books. Danny, we've covered a lot on this network, the crimes committed in the city of New York, where people don't go to jail at all. They bail out. Undocumented immigrants have assaulted police officers and then bailed out right away. There's a problem with people going to prison in New York right now. Do you think the President gets prison time? I do not. I think the odds are that he does not. Still, there is a chance. It's The Class E Felony, the lowest level felony, as Lara just explained, they're not going to run them consecutively. They will run concurrently. He's over 70 years old, nonviolent crime, no criminal history, no guns, no drugs. All the factors point toward a strong case for a probation only sentence. I would add, and this would be the defense argument in me, I would argue that this is a case where the loss is zero. There's no loss, there's no identifiable victims. Now, reasonable minds can disagree. There's an argument to be made that, look, there were people who were defrauded.

After all, that's one of the definitions of the crime, and it was the people of the state of New York, for example. But when you look at traditional fraud cases, you don't have traditional victims, as you often do in these prosecutions where someone Someone's defrauded out of money, they turn money over, or someone defrauds the government out of money, like welfare benefits or something like that. So as a defense attorney, that would be the argument I would make, that the loss amount, which is the main driver in fraud cases, the loss amount here would be zero. But again, I do expect the prosecution is going to ask for incarceration. It's a great point. I want to combine your amazing legal minds right now, like a Boltron lawyer. First, explain to our viewers that this was an untested legal theory. He's been prosecuted on a crime that has, I guess, never been committed or never been tried. Then how does that help him in appeal? Danny, you take that part, but first explain this part. The falsification of business records, which is normally just a misdemeanor. Books and records, you hear that a lot. Even the former President calls it the Books and records charge.

That is not new. That has been charged many, many, many times. What is new is the way that they hooked it, the way that they made it a felony, the way they bumped it up and stepped it up was this choose your own adventure. They said it was actually a violation of New York state law that prohibits two or more people from conspiring to promote someone's election through unlawful means. The question for this entire trial was, what was that unlawful means? The jury on that piece of it didn't have to be unanimous. We will never know until somebody secures that jury interview, what did they think was the unlawful means? The prosecutors offered a variety of different theories, not too much on the proof on any of those. They just floated out, well, it could have been the fact that Cohen paid Daniels, and it violated the contribution amounts at the time, or maybe it was tax laws, or maybe it was other books and records. We don't really know what they think the unlawful means is, and we don't have to know because they don't have to be unanimous on that. The hook to the unlawful means using a federal elections charge has never been done before.

When we talk about it being novel, that's why it was novel. That's why this office, as the former president has pointed out, thought they might not want to do this. There was dissension in the office. It was known as the zombie case because Because of that way, it was so novel. Prosecutors were weary about bringing this case for a long time, and the prior district attorney wouldn't do it. How can that help them on appeal now, Danny? Because exactly as Laura explained, if it is a novel theory, you have a number of different arguments. You might argue it's unconstitutionally vague. You might argue that the- It was out of their jurisdiction, right? Yes, there's that argument, too. I would expect to see an argument that this constitutes state enforcement of federal law. I would expect to see that, Crobar, then. I would expect to see, let's go back to factually Stormy Daniels, whether or not her testimony was too prejudicial or more prejudicial than probative. You might see some arguments on the jury instructions, but there are a number of avenues for appeal in this case. But let's Unless you think I think that means that it's a strong case, nobody on appeal faces strong odds.

Everyone on appeal is living life as a long shot. But it will be tied up for months. Let me ask you, though, do you think he's got a chance to win this appeal? He's But I mean, all appeals, like I said, are a hope and a prayer. But on the issues of law, since they are generally reviewed brand new with a fresh set of eyes, he might have a chance, if for no other reason, then this is a novel theory of law. You go back to Mark Pomerantz, and Laura was just talking about the former New York County prosecutor who joined this team and then left the team, wrote a book about it. According to him, they commissioned up to one or two outside law firms to tell them-To figure it out.whether what they theorized was even a crime. If you need an outside law firm to tell an office full of very bright attorneys whether something's a crime, that, to me, is an indication you might, just might, have an appealable issue. Danny Cee, Laura Jarrett, thank you so much. I hope that does it for you, but it probably doesn't. You guys will probably be work until the Today Show tomorrow.

We thank you so much. All right, this verdict marks a number of historic first. Trump is now the first presumptive presidential nominee to be convicted of a felony. How much will this monumental conviction play out when Americans head to the polls this November? We'll hear from more voters in just a moment. All right, welcome back with more of our NBC News Now special as former President Trump is found guilty by a New York jury of 34 counts of falsifying business records. The former President also a candidate, but how is this playing out with Americans, voters across the country? Nbc's Shaquille Brewster joins us now from Kenosha, Wisconsin, a battleground state. I should remind you with some perspective on that topic. Shaq, you talked to voters today after the verdict. What did they tell you? Well, Tom, the thing here about Kenosha is that the needle doesn't really need to move that much in order for it to have an impact in this battleground state. Of course, we know how close Wisconsin is every election. This is a county that back in 2016, Donald Trump won by less than a fraction of a percentage point, and it's a county that helped elect the Democratic governor just two years after that.

So it's a place where you have those swing voters. Based on the conversations I've been having so far, and it's just a couple of hours after that verdict after that conviction, there are some patterns that I've been picking up on. One is that it's still being digested by a lot of people. I've had plenty of conversations where people didn't know the headline or they saw the headline and said, what exactly was he convicted for? But you also But we also hear that for those who do know about it, it's largely reinforcing what they already believe. I want you to listen to some of the exchanges I had with people just in the past couple of hours. Does this impact or alter at all how you view Donald Trump? Absolutely not. Why not? Because we already didn't work for him. So this just is evidence that he shouldn't be in office. Just because there's a jury doesn't mean anything. There's a lot of in different positions that could be charged for a lot of different things. We're so far from what I see. It seems like I'd still vote Trump, but he doesn't seem like as good a candidate.

Because of this conviction. Yeah. And that last comment makes you believe that if this continues to be in the headlines, we know there are more court hearings to come. There's that sentencing that we'll have in July, that it could shift things around the margins. But the conversations that I've been having, people have brought up the issues as the things that help them decide who to support ultimately in this election. They bring up the economy, they bring up health care, they bring up immigration. They say that this is not going to be a determining factor, largely because this doesn't change how they view the former President for the better or for the worst. And how they view their lives and their problems, etc. Shaq Brewster, thank you so much for that insight. It is so important on a day like today. Trump's New York criminal trial, taking up a lot of headlines and hours across the media landscape. Take a look at the upcoming cover of The New Yorker, a cartoonist referencing Trump and a series of handcuffs. Time magazine also referencing the case on their June cover of this picture with the gavel and Trump's face right there.

Stephen Hayes is editor and CEO of The Dispatch and a friend of this broadcast, an NBC news political analyst. Washington Post media critic Eric Wempel is joining us as well, and Yahoo Finance senior reporter, Alexandra Canal. Eric, I want to start with you because I've read you over the years. You don't pull any punches. I I want you to pull out your report card, and I would love if you could be specific. How did the media do this time around on this trial? I think that by and large, if you like live updates, well, there are a lot of live updates from all these news outlets, and I found It's been pretty helpful for the most part. I think that places like my own employer, Washington Post, New York Times, all the big newspapers covered it well. I watched a lot of MSNBC, found it enlightening. Cnn, I found strong, too. I thought Fox was shoveling the same crap into the public square that they've been shoveling for the past nearly three decades. I thought it was a pretty straightforward thing to cover because there's the proceedings all day. There's stuff that the judge was saying.

There's stuff that the defense council and the prosecutor was saying. I thought it was, I thought, a steady and heavy diet of news. I think that was justified because this was, after all, the criminal prosecution of a president. I thought that the over coverage, such as it was, was well placed. Well, Steven, that leads to my next question to you, right? A former president is on trial. It's a historic moment for the country. But was this case over covered? I mean, there's still two wars happening overseas. There are issues here at home with immigration. President Biden was out there trying to rally Black voters. That didn't get a whole lot of coverage. Or was it covered, do you think, the right amount? No, I mean, I agree for the reasons that Eric suggests, that it wasn't over covered. I mean, this is the President of the United States. He's in trial. There's a lot to cover. There's the 80 hours of testimony, 80 hours in the courtroom. I think it required the coverage that we saw. But one thing I think it was missing from a lot of the coverage, not from all of it, but from a lot of the coverage, was more context about exactly the theory of the case and what Alvin Bragg was doing.

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I think there are legitimate complaints that Republicans have been making about the way that this case was brought about, about the triple bank shot elements of this case. That made it, I think, very unique and a legal stretch. That was true. I think you had experts, legal analysts on the left saying that when they unveiled the indictment itself and the statement of facts, people thought, boy, there seemed to be some holes in there. That context, I think, would have been helpful for people to understand, in part, the reaction that we're seeing right now. Alexander, were Americans watching? I mean, were ratings up? I know on cable news networks like our own MSNBC, CNN. They went gavel to gavel on a trial where the cameras weren't allowed in court. Yeah, so the trial took place over about a month and a half. The main numbers are the ones to really focus on. And in terms of those primetime viewership numbers for the month of May, we saw upticks across the board for all of the major cable networks, but one stood out, and that is Fox News. No surprise there.

It's a conservative leaning news network. It really caters to Trump's base. But year over year, viewership was up about 41% to hit 2 million. Msnbc was about flat. Cnn saw an uptick of about 5 %. And then those younger demographics around 24 to 55 that actually saw some downward trends for MSNBC and CNN. But again, Fox up nearly 50 %. Those are just the primetime figures. And then when you think about the daytime broadcast, especially during the testimonies of Stormy Daniels, that was just a win across the board. And that speaks to the interest of this case. Eric, you've been following how the media has covered former President Trump since he announced back in 2015. And you've written some really, I would call them brave columns when the media hasn't always done their job or gotten it right. Have we learned from covering Trump over these eight years? And are you seeing the coverage getting better, or is it the same as that you've seen over the last eight years? It's been a very grudging process. The media has not necessarily learned all the obvious lessons that were clear very early in this particular era.

What I'm speaking about mostly is just allowing Trump live opportunities to lie, to spread his mendacity across the country. I think media outlets are... Cnn, I think was last year, did a town hall with him. It was a disaster. Media outlets need to learn that you don't let this guy spout his lies live on your air. I think that's number one. Number two is in your analysis piece, it's very difficult to draw any comparisons between Trump's activities as a candidate or as a president with other people that have come before his so-called normal politicians. The analysis and the comparison is almost in there and very failed because how much Trump lies and how much of an outsider case he is. I think those are the two main things. I think the record is maybe a C minus for the media on those fronts. I'm not terribly happy with how the media has adjusted it over the years. Steve, we didn't have cameras in this courtroom. I know a lot of media executives, news executives probably wish this was an OJ-like trial, but there were no cameras in the courtroom. Definitely. Did that help or hurt Trump, you think?

I think it probably helped Trump. I mean, It's hard to say because the nature of the proceedings would have been so very different had there been cameras in the courtroom. I mean, nothing would have resembled what we saw unfold or what we heard unfold or had reported to us as it unfolded in the past. I think when you read the accounts of things like the reading of the guilty verdicts today, just the drama there would have been such a gripping television moment. If you think about Trump having had video of him in court, looking sullen, maybe sleeping as reports had it, that wouldn't have helped him, I think, in any way if that was what Americans were seeing, even if they weren't paying attention to the trial. Just seeing that on the front page newspapers, video all over the place. I think that would have hurt Trump. Alexander, to me, it's been a fascinating campaign going back to the primaries, but obviously this is my business. I'm into this. The American people, they have not shown much interest in this campaign or this election up until this point. There was obviously a spike with this trial.

Do you think it dies down in the summer? Do you think it picks up with the debates? I mean, the debates are now going to be so early before the voting. What do you think happens with this campaign? I certainly think it picks up. I think it's going to continue to dominate the news coverage out there. You have to remember, this is one out of four criminal indictments the former President is facing. The pressure is going to continue to be on him, not to mention that we do have that first debate between Trump and Biden coming up at the end of June. There's going to be a lot of eyeballs on that debate. You would think that there's going to be a lot of conversation heading into that debate about what the outlook could be. Trump just has a way of getting people to talk about him. Clearly, considering the broadcast numbers that we saw across the board, they're going to continue to Eric, we only got about 30 seconds, but I do want to ask you this last question. Is Trump winning the media game? We talked about this a lot in 2016, the unearned media, how he just dominated the airwaves.

Hillary Clinton could not get her message out there. Is that happening this time around? I don't see it right now. I mean, obviously, it's a difficult analysis to undertake simply because it is the media's job to cover all these trials. And he does take the breaks and comes out and holds forth his usual spiel, which is full nonsense. Jack Schafer pointed out that the Fox News takes those basically face value all the time. The other networks didn't do it as much. But no, I don't think it's the same. I don't think it's the same. All right, Eric, we appreciate all of your analysis. Stephen Hayes, my buddy, we appreciate that, too. Alexander, it was great to meet you. We thank you all for being here on a historic night here on NBC News Now. We thank you for watching this special tonight, our special coverage of the Trump hush money trial conviction. I'm Tom Yamis in New York. Stay right there. More news still on the way. Thanks for watching. Stay updated about breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or follow us on social media.