absolutely free text dra w to 369369. today, i'm caitlin polantz at the federal court in washington and this is cnn closed captioning is brought to you by you, cora, help maintain a healthy urinary tract with you, cora, i can having utis for ten years. >> you cora. we make uti relief products. we also make proactive urinary tract hello product. ucar is a life stage write today at you core.com cnn breaking news donald trump is a convicted felon, 34 times over. >> and good evening from outside the courthouse and lower manhattan where it all happened just about three hours ago. there simply is no overstate getting what happened in the entire history of this country and of the american presidency. not one president or former president has ever tried or convicted of anything, let alone multiple so we'll felonies today. a jury of 12 new yorkers supplied that dubious distinction. this is their verdict sheet, guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records cover up a hush money payment to an adult film star made right before the 2016 election. convicted with the 2024 election fast approaching the 45th president 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 lived, works and sought out the headlines he saying 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. but first, i'm political analysts in new york times senior your political correspondent, maggie haberman, who watched the verdict read from the courtroom. you've been there every day. you've been in that courtroom and 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 that 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 again and merge sean was taking a while to come comeback city. >> we're going to 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 they needed another 30 minutes to finish filling out their paperwork, and then they came in. they filed past him one juror appeared to look at him out of the corner of his eye fairly certain that's the juror who the trump team had seen with trump allies, if that was on trump's sayyed and kept channeling that the accounts were unanimous. the foreman stood up, he said guilty, 34 times into a microphone. trump was basically quiet. i've covered a lot of high-profile verdicts in the past are some high-profile verdicts, and usually there is some there's a reaction now 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 silence in the courtroom among the those listening, correct? there was silence among his supporters. >> he was there with a number of his aides, one of his close friends, steve witkoff, his lawyers are 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 good news 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 news 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 don't want to speculate what got under heads, but clearly, a couple of things we can deduce. one is that the documentary evidence that the prosecutors presented, which was the checks with 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 he laid out the case and laid out the story they were telling and that 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 was hung. blanche 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 new 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 happened? since now in the world of donald trump legally does he jettison todd blanche, who knows? >> i mean, in trump's cycles through lawyers in a way that i've never seen anyone else 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 that are going to point to, to say that this should be appealed. they've been talking about what zombie case this was, how it was not supposed to be. it was resurrected alvin bragg, the district attorney, did talk about trump on during his own campaign for da sure. that will come up. there were moments in the trial like stormy daniels testimony, other rulings by dressed as much merchan, 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 message he'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 will press its baseless to say president biden has something to do with this trump is able to put a face on it. you're going to see him keep doing that. but does this we're 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 they're all day long. >> we're 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 journey. the charging instructions when the when the judge explains the law to the jurors were 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 dry, i'm paraphrasing, so forgive me 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 trying to understand what infant and so as they could draw about trump's possible behavior here, i would've bringing seen in a corresponding kara scannell, who was also there is the verdict was read and has been there throughout care the junction has said that he was planning sending the jury home for the de at 430 is as maga saying, he got a note from them saying that they'd reach a verdict from your vantage point, what stood out to you anderson, the mood changed dramatically because the judge came on the bench at 4:15 thing he was going to let the jury leave at 4:30. >> we hadn't heard from the jury's 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 was extremely quiet and everyone was just sitting there waiting. then the judge came back on the bench. he said that the jury needed 30 minutes let's to fill out the guilty the form. then they came back. he brought them in the jurors walk to the seats in the jury box. they didn't look at donald trump. they normally don't, but they did today either. they went they sat down in their seeds and then the judge asked them, is this true? you have a verdict. the foreman said yes, that they do. then the judge's clerk had we'll set to the foreman going through each of these counts one by one with the foreman saying guilty, guilty. 34 times, while the jury is reading the verdict, trump was sitting in his seat looking straight ahead. then after that, the judge had asked the head the clerk ask the jury, did everyone unanimously agree that this was there? predict 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, saw some look it's 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 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 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 stay on, 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. after the juror lab, the jury lapped, 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 that he lied 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 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 finds him. he reached out to eric trump's hand, shook it vigorously, and then as he was walking past eric trump, eric padded his father on the back and then trump walked out the center aisle of 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 he looked that upset when he was walking out of that courtroom with a frown on his face and his face reddened in an appearance, anderson yeah. >> i want to play actually a clear of what trump said after court today. let's watch this this was a disgrace. >> this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. the real verdict is could it be november 5th by the people? and we didn't do anything wrong have a very innocent man will keep fighting or fight til the end. and we'll win there was a sort of a little conference they had before he came to the cameras with boris perception that as stephen miller and others i assume talking about what he would say, what did you make his comments? i'm going to think that it's the posture that we always see donald from take, which is that he's going to fight, that he is showing that there's no crack and in the the face that he's putting on for the world that 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 we feel 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 a i don't think you wanted to resume either what this is, however, is something that could fracture the country in a way that impeachment did not yeah, maybe haberman. >> thank you. kara scannell as well. we'll get to the remaining legal questions in a moment. first, want to talk about the gravity, the history of this day joining us legendary presidential historian doris kearns goodwin, doors, what is your reactions? 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 today 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 your peer, the defendant issue 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, the lawyer speak than the experts in the media speak and finding those 12 people speak and while the jury system is 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 that maybe even more important part is to come in a lot. will ride on how this candidate chooses to use this as a cudgel or to use this there's clearly no sense of shame but how does this candidate choose to kind of weaponize this if he chooses to do that even more so than he's already done. >> on during this campaign. i mean, to desi doubled down on attacking the pillars of democracy, doubled down on attacking the judicial system. the jury 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 i don't know that 71% of the people as a current poll say it won't matter that this verdict came in and 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, the 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 gonna 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 united 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 new book. i mean, your optimism comes out in the pages 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. now unemployment is at a certain rate. people are feeling their daily lives moving along. we'd begun to move away from covid it's gonna be hard to make that understanding that were in tears terrible shape, and that the cold system. now it's not only the electoral system that's rigged, but now the jury system is rigged at a certain level. people understand what democracy is when you waited for that decision, as i did, i felt that sense of emotional visceral connection to what democracy means that sometimes in a 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 hello, 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. would be here tonight and you're new york criminal defense attorney arthur aidala, former new york judge. you'll khan visor 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 it happens now, engineers 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 job judge today where he asked for another motion to dismiss. it was summarily denied, but the judge did craft motion schedule, so it is now adjourned. caring for defense counsel to file motions what's called a 33030 motion, which is the statute which is post-conviction, pre-sentence for emotional than to dismiss that people will will be able to respond. that's why the sentence date is so long. i've 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 sorry, which presumably he doesn't have at this moment. and the other would be something that happened during the trial that would automatically would've been automatical automatic? at a reverse on appeal, 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 it granted, if he denies it, the case will move to sentence, which we heard would be july 11, joe joneses in terms of sentencing what would you expect? >> well, as you look at in sentencing anderson, you look at the factors such as punishment, appropriate pu