how it plays with swing voters. >> all right. well, thank you both very much and thanks to all of you for being with us for this special coverage on this historic day here in new york are breaking news. coverage continues now with ac30, 60 cnn breaking news donald trump is a convicted felon, 34 times over. >> and good evening from outside the courthouse in lower manhattan, where it all happened just about three hours course ago, there simply is no overstating what happened in the entire history of this country and of the american presidency, not one president or former president has ever been tried we're convicted of anything, let alone multiple felonies. today, a jury of 12 new yorkers supply that dubious distinction. this is their verdict sheet, guilty on all 34 counts a falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to an adult film star made right before the 2016 election convicted with the 2024 election faster approaching the 45th president of the united states running to be the 47 now, back at the gilded skyscraper, he built, that's him arriving back there where he once they've worked in, sought out the headlines facing tonight, headlines that no one with his title or self-image ever has. in a moment, we'll talk with presidential historian doors kearns goodwin. the first cnn political analysts and york times senior political correspondent, maggie haberman, who watched the verdict read from the courtroom. you've been there every day. you've been in that courtroom in the courthouse was like, it's very hard to describe how intense a moment it was anderson, particularly because we had believed the jurors are being sent home. just as much sean had indicated he was going to ask the jurors if they wanted to go home, trump walked back into the courtroom in anticipation of that moment in a great mood. one of the best modes we've seen him come in since this trial began and more sean was taking a while to come back. he said he was gonna step off the bench. he was going to figure out what the jury wanted it was taken so long. it was clear something was up and when he came back, he said that the jurors had said they had reached a verdict and they needed another 30 minutes to finish filling out their paperwork. and then they they came in, they filed past him one juror appeared to look at him out of the corner of his eye. i'm fairly certain that's the juror who the trump team had seen with trump allies, if it was on trump's salt hi and kept channeling that the accounts were unanimous the form and stood up. he said guilty 34 times into a microphone. trump was basically quiet. i've covered a lot of hype profile verdicts in the past are some high-profile vertex and usually there is some, there's a reaction and they were cautioned not to react. but normally people can't help it. there was just silence. i think that everybody was stunned around trump, including trump himself. >> and there were silenced in the courtroom among those listening, correct? >> there was silence among his supporters. he was there with a number of his it's aids. one of his close friends to witkoff his lawyers were obviously all the table, but i think it was pretty clear to the defense team as soon as the judge said the jury had a verdict that it was probably not the newest for them. they had felt pretty good about the fact that it had gone as long as it did, they felt like every day and this is just common sense if it's taking the jurors longer, it's better for the defense under two days coming up with this verdict was not going to be good. and it was for them. >> were you surprised? what stands out to you as having made a mark on the jury again, we haven't heard from them as possible to know it could be anything, so i don't want to speculate what got on their heads, but clearly a couple of things we can deduce. one is that the documentary evidence that the prosecutors presented, which was the checks, was strong enough. the testimony from david pecker, which they asked for several read backs from was clearly pretty strong and there's a reason prosecutor started with david pecker. he was a good witness for them and he really laid out the case and laid out the story they were telling. and for all of the energy that we all spend on whether todd blanche dinged up michael cohen and michael cohen definitely had a rough couple of days, but what didn't happen? and was hung, lynch didn't get under his skin and didn't make him blow up. and cohen was clearly well prepped for that cross-examination and new newt, some of what to expect and was braced for it they were not compelled that michael cohen couldn't be believed either is a take. we have to we have to have what do you think happens now in the world of donald trump? >> hello dolly. legally does he jettison todd blanche, who knows? i mean, trump cycles through lawyers in a way that i've never seen anyone else i'll do it. i expect most people haven't. >> legally they're going to file an appeal and i think they're going to have a bunch of things. they're going to point to, to say that this should be appealed. they've been talking about what does omby case. this was how it was not supposed to be. >> it was resurrected alvin bragg, the district attorney, did talk about trump on it during his own campaign for da. i'm sure that will come up. there were moments in the trial like stormy daniels testimony, other rulings by dresses, machine, they will raise all of that. they may be successful. we have no idea on cases do get overturned on appeal politically, trump will incorporate this into the same that's what she's been using since he got indicted, which is that i am being persecuted. there is a witch hunt here. unlike when he had impeachment, he has a target in president biden, who while its baseless to say president biden has something to do with this trump is able to put a face on it and you're going to see him keep doing that. but does this were five months from an election? is any voter a going to be swayed by this or care by election day? i have no idea yeah. in terms of just having been there all day long, were there moments to you that for you that registered? >> today was look today was was testimony read back and so that was that was a while in the morning. but what did stand out to me was one of the things of the jurors asked for was a rereading a part of the charging instructions when when the judge explains the law to the jurors and where they wanted to start was when the judge was using an analogy about rain and that even if you go to sleep one night and the pavements draw i'm paraphrasing, so forgive me if i'm a little off, but if you wake up and we go to bed, the pavements dry, you wake up and it's way you can deduce that. it rained and i think that that was significant for the jury and trump hi to understand what inferences they could draw about trump's possible behavior here. >> i wouldn't bring seen in a corresponding kara scannell, who was also there as the verdict was read and has been there throughout qarrah, the junctions said that he was planning on sending the jury hung for the de 430 is as maggie was saying, he got a note from them saying that they reach a verdict. from your vantage point, what stood out to you? >> anderson, the mood changed dramatically because the judge came on the bench and 415 thing he was going to let the jury leave at 4:30 hadn't heard from the jury since they went back to deliberate at 11:15 a.m. as we were waiting for the judge to return trump and his lawyers were sitting at the table they were lapping, they were smiling. it seemed like they expected that this meant no verdict. they were going to go home and come back the next day, the judge comes back on the bench at 4:36 and he says, i have a note signed by the jury, 420 he says they have a verdict. the entire mood change. trump crossed his arms. the room was still no one was speaking or talking. it was it extremely quiet and everyone was just sitting there waiting. then the judge came back on the bench he said but the jury needed 30 minutes to fill out the guilty the form, then they came back. he brought them in the jurors, walked to the seats in the jury box. they didn't look at donald trump they normally don't, but they didn't today either. they went they sat down in their seats and then the judge asked them, is this true? you have a verdict. the foreman said yes, that they do. then the but just clerk had whole set to the foreman going through each of these counts. one-by-one with the foreman saying guilty, guilty, 34 times, while the jury's greeting the verdict, trump was sitting in his seat looking straight ahead. then after that, the judge had asked the head the clerk asked the jury, did everyone unanimously? agree that this was their verdict? the jurors audibly said, guests, and then he asked if anybody wanted the jury polled individually, trump's lawyer, todd blanche, said that he did and so the clerk will then went through each of the jurors to pull them at that point, trump had turned to look at them and when the jurors answer the questions, most of them were looking directly at the judge i saw some look down, none seemed again, to look at donald trump, then the judge had said to the jurors he wanted to thank them for their service. he asked them if they could stay behind because he we wanted to talk to them individually once he finished up with what the business was still in the courtroom. so that's when the jurors left. he also think the alternate jurors, he had them brought into the courtroom room and to sit in the front row while the jury was delivering the verdict. i've never seen that. usually a jerk. the alternate jurors are excused. sometimes they're asked to say jan, but they're not ever brought back in to sit in witness the verdict in the case that they were so diligently paying attention to over the past seven weeks so, after the juror lab, the jury labs, then the judge merchan spoke to trump's lawyers who they move for an appeal saying that thought based on michael cohen's testimony, that he lives on the stand, the judge rejected that, and then they set the sentencing date for july 11 there'll be some motions do before then. so then as donald trump was leaving the courtroom, he stood up he had a frown on his face. his face was red. he walked to the divider and that is when his son, eric trump is sitting right behind him he reached out to eric trump hands, shook it vigorously. and then as he was walking past eric trump, eric hadn't his father on the back, and then trump walked out the center aisle, the courtroom and headed to the cameras where he spoke certainly a dramatic de i talked to someone in trump's camp who was telling me afterwards, he said that trump was in good spirits and ready to fight. that was not the expression as he was walking out of the courtroom, he looked a bit wounded in. i don't want to speak for him, but he looked get upset when he was walking into that courtroom with a frown on his face and his face reddened in an appearance, anderson yeah. >> i want to play actually a clip of what trump said for court today. >> let's watch this this was a disgrace. >> this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge was corrupt. the real 30 is going to be november 5th by the people and we didn't do a anything wrong have a very innocent man will keep fighting or fight til the end. and we'll win there was sort of a little conference they had before he came to the cameras with boris epshteyn and stephen miller and others. i assume talking about what he would say. what did you make? >> comments? i'm going to think that it's the posture that we always see down the front take, which is that he's going to fight, that he is showing that there's no crack in the face putting on for the world is being tough and he has said, he had said versions of this to some people. >> he has spoken to i don't know whether that's actually how he feels. the thing i always think about is my colleague jonathan swan, when he was at axios reported right after trump was impeached the first time that he had chosen house republicans, it's not the kind of thing you want on your resume. this isn't the kind of thing you wanted to resume either. what this is, however, is something that could fracture the country in a way that impeachment did not make you haberman. thank you. kara scannell as well. we'll get to the remaining legal questions in a moment. first one to talk about the gravity of the history three, of this day joining us legendary presidential historian doris kearns goodwin, doors, what is your reaction to this moment in our country even, as i was waiting for the verdict, i kept imagining what would be like 50 years from now, what historians would say and i think what they will say in part is depends on what we do with this on november 5th. >> but what those say about now is that a system of important part of a system of democracy worked today. that the rule of law was as the judge said he's a your peer, the defendant is your appear no man is above the law. and i think they'll seem this child, at least so it seemed to all of us watching it that there was a fundamental fairness that the judge was an extraordinary character. he led both sides have their say and the jury spoke first lawyers speak than the experts in the media speak and finding those 12 people speak. and while the joy system has never perfect as no institution is, it's a hallmark of democracy. i think that's the first thing that'll be written in the chapters of history later on, then the question will be, how does the public received this verdict? is it going to be fractured like the country? will there be? many people who agree with president trump, former president trump that it was rigged. how many of those people were there be? will it make a difference that this verdict is there to those people that are undecided, those people that are independent? how will this citizens are going to write the next chapter of this story? and that may be even more important part that's to come in a lot will ride on how this candidate chooses to use this as a cudgel or to use this. >> i mean, there's clearly no sense of shame but how does this candidate shoes? who's to kind of weaponize this if he chooses to do that, even more so than he's already done during this campaign. i mean, to does he doubled down on attacking the pillars of democracy, doubled down on attacking the judicial system. the jury system we know what we've seen really in the past, which tells us the likelihood of what he'll do now in the present, when the election was lost in 2020, again, most legal systems who looked at that election said it was fundamentally fair as i think they may about this jury system. >> and yet he was able to persuade by doubling down a lot of people that the election was not lost. it led to january 6 at that time, i thought that had made a difference and that everything would be changed. so even as i say that now that this is going to have a fundamental effect on people, i do feel, however, that's, i don't know that 71% of the people as a current poll say it won't matter that this version nicht came in. >> i think when people look at it, they're going to wonder something went on during this thing. >> somehow the prosecution was able to make a story that had a beginning, a middle, and that persuaded those jurors that something bad happened. and i wonder how many people are going to feel that as well. and do we really want to have as somebody, as our leader? who sets an example that you cannot accept a loss neither in 2016 that potential loss and do something to change the rules of the game. or in 2020 again. and somehow you just know that if you have a kid and they lose something you want them to accept it with grace. and i don't suspect that's going to happen, but it's going to be up to us to make an educated understanding of what the jury system meant. justice we should have made and we did through those hearings in january 6, make it but then it all got lost again in our fractured country you and i spoke on a lot of difficult days in this country over the last several years. >> and i'm wondering, and you are an optimist and that comes out, i just finished reading your, your new book. i mean, your optimism comes out in the paint ages of what you write do you think this is a will be a positive or negative moment for american democracy i guess what i really do believe is that it will be a positive moment in the sense that i understand what the former president will do. >> he will say it's rigged. he'll say we're a declining country that we're a banana republic i don't think most people feel that way about our country and hardly any election has ever been won by just tearing down the country and making it seem like a terrible place. i mean, the economy has difficulties, but we're still the best economy in the world right now. unemployment is at a certain rate. people are feeling their daily lives moving along. we'd be gun to move away from covid. it's going to be hard to make that understanding that were in terrible shape and that the coal system, now it's not only the electoral system that's rig, but now the jury system is rigged at a certain level. people understand what democracy is. you know, when you waited for that decision, as i did, i felt that sense of emotional visceral connection to what democracy means, that sometimes distraction, it's the same thing you feel when you walk into the voting booth and you mark your opinion and you mark your vote and you realize millions of other people are doing the same thing. and that's going to determine whether we throw the characters out or we bring new ones in. and somehow i think democracy is going to be made to feel real and that's going to be the challenge of this next election. and whether it's worth saving. and i think most people believe it absolutely is doris kearns goodwin. >> it's great to talk to you. thank you. >> thank you we'd be here tonight. >> you're new york criminal defense attorney arthur aidala, former new york judge. you'll khan buys her, who is known judge merchan for where the 15 years also with this johnny jones, the third former chief judge for the us middle district of pennsylvania. judge called visor what happens now in jerusalem? >> the legal process in terms of the legal process now, generally a case would be adjourned for sentence. >> you heard todd blanche make an application before the judge today, where we asked for another motion to dismiss. it was summarily denied, but the judge did craft motion schedule, so it is now adjourned for defense counsel file motions what's called a 33030 motion, which is the statute which is post-conviction pre-sentence for a motion to dismiss the people the will a will be able to respond. that's why the sentence state is so long a motion to dismiss post conviction pre-sentence can be based on one of three things. one being newly discovered evidence, which certainly todd blanche doesn't have at this moment, whether or not there was some inappropriate conduct by the jury, which presumably he doesn't and have at this moment. and the other would be something that happened during the trial that would automatically would've been automatical automatic reverse on a he'll which i don't think he has either, but that is what the motion will be. the people will have a chance to respond. the judge will render the decision if he grants that he granted if he denies it, the case we'll move to sentence which we heard would be july 11th, the joneses in terms of sentencing, what would you expect well, as you look at sentencing you're saying you look at the factors such as punishment, appropriate punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and i'm moved say that you can throw out the third factor rehabilitation that's not going to come into play. >> and