sentence and non-prison sentences virtually the same. and in fact, a prison sentence, maybe he gets a sentence, but they expect, they hoped that it would be stayed immediately and that it would not go into effect. and so this is all i guess short-term political strategy i still think that we should just be aware that there is also a very good possibility that he does not get a prison sentence let's hear right. just based on the facts of this particular case but the fact that so many trump allies are suggesting to me that they see present in his feature, they think that that is going to be just a shot of adrenaline into the republican base. and that's all that is on their minds at this point. look verdict has calmed down. they're going to take what they've got and run with it and they think that this is going to be the motivating factor we heard one republican hugh hewitt a commentator, say, this is almost like the dobbs decision for democrats. i don't know if that is true interested. this is the kind of rhetoric that we're hearing out. they're from republican polo. >> we expect trump to begin speaking any moment. >> yeah, it could go for an hour, as kristen said, whether it takes questions or not, it is unknown how focus is his legal team now and on moments like this, right? this isn't just a minute or two outside the courtroom. this is going to be an hour to potentially do things like violate the gag order yes. >> yes. yes. that is exactly what his legal team is going to be thinking about because the gag order is still in place. there were questions about well, why didn't todd blanche moved to have it lifted right after the verdict i spoke with the team this morning and i'm told that they believe they still have an active appeal on wednesday, they filed a request for expedited review of the gag order with the court of appeals. so they believe that is still in progress. as we know, they've been very aggressive about litigating this gag order, but all of his gag order violations can be used in the eventual sentencing calculus. so i am sure that they are concerned about that the lawyers again, but really it appears that the political concerns are taking are taking center stage here. all right. all staying with us here is we are awaiting this press conference. let me send it back down to you, wolf aaron. thank you very much. my excellent panelists here with me were awaiting the former president of the united states, cnn legal analyst, karen friedman, agnifilo is with us cnn senior legal analyst elie honig, his here. see cnn anchor and chief legal analyst laura coates, is with a cnn akre chief national affairs analyst kasie hunt is whether cnn politically i'm director david champion, of course, is here and cnn senior political analyst, nima leica henderson is with us as well. lots of excellent analysts who are going to assess what's going on. so casey, we heard that trump is not going to be speaking formally with a teleprompter reading a formally crafted speech off the cuff. what does that say to you? >> pretty telling, right. and this is a candidate president at one point and now again, a candidate who behaves very differently when he is not using a teleprompter, then when he is and his aides have gone out of their way to try to make sure that they control what, what does happen. and oftentimes some of the moments that stand out to us the most from his rallies or from other events are times when he's not using the teleprompter. so i think it says a lot about the tone and tenor of what we are likely to hear. i suppose we'll see i have to say, i'm just i am struck by the venue. i mean, i was at the event when he came down the golden escalator and announced he was running for president back in 2015 at trump tower, which we are now looking at the outside of it is hard not to be struck by just how far we have come as a country over the course of that time that we are now here covering an ex-president current republican nominee who's been found guilty on 345 years ago that other event was going on. eleia, as we know, and we've reported he still under a gag order, even though the convictions have come in. so what does that mean? what can he say? what can't he say in his off-the-cuff comments that are coming up. >> so the gag order is far more narrow that i think donald trump would have you believe based on his public a commentary as it stands at this moment, the gag order allows donald trump to criticize angrily, aggressively as he has done the judge, the district attorney, alvin bragg, the case against him, and even the gag order actually, what he cannot do is make public comments about the witnesses. question whether that'll stay in place now that the trial is over for the jurors, i think that needs to stay in place. and then the staff and the family members of the prosecutors and the judge. and as paul mentioned, there will be an appeal hearing on this next week. i don't think trump has much if any chance of getting this gag order overturned. it's quite narrow and i think it's respectful appropriately of his first amendment rights at the same time. so if you violates this upcoming remarks, which are about to begin, we're told violates the gag order. what's the punishment? two things, number one, he could be found in contempt. >> again, he's already been found to have violated at ten times. and the other thing is everything donald trump says from here on out is fair game at sentencing. so the prosecutor peters can say to the judge, looked this shows he has no remorse, he has not accepted responsibility, and on down the line, it all is fair game sentencing july 11, just what, a few days before the republican national convention in milwaukee, which will all be watching as well. >> karen is with us as well. karen, i just want to point out as we have two quick disclosure note karen is also counsel for a firm that represents michael cohen but has no contact with him and doesn't work on this case. is all and there are no restrictions on what she can say about this case. so trump's sentence is clearly now in the hands of judge merchan, whom he's repeatedly attacked. what do you think that could mean when it comes to sentencing? >> i think look, the judge is going to consider many things at sentencing. he's going to consider the fact that this is a very serious case. this is a case where the jury i pulled that the jury instructions the jury had to find unanimously the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person or let me just point out, he's now off the escalators. he's down there. he's getting ready. he's more than closer towards the microphone's. i want to hear what he has to say. so let's listen this is a case where if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone. these are bad people. these are in many cases, i believe sick people when you look at our country, what's happening, where millions and millions of people are flowing in from all parts of the world, not just south america from africa, from asia, from the middle east and they're coming in from jails and prisons. and they're coming in from mental institutions and insane asylums. they coming in from all over the world into our country and we have a president and a group of fascists don't want to do anything about it because they could right now today, he could stop it. but he's not the destroying our country. or countries in very bad shape. they're very much against me saying these things they want to raise your taxes by four times they want to stop you from having cars with a ridiculous mandates that make it impossible for you to get a car for the car make it very possible for china to build all of our cars. it's a very serious problem that we have. we just went through one of many experiences where we had a conflicted judge, highly conflicted. there's never been a more conflicted, judge. now, i'm under a gag order, which nobody has ever been under no presidential candidates ever been under a gag order before. i'm under a gag order, nasty gag order where i've had to pay thousands of dollars in penalties and fines. and was threatened with jail think of it. i'm the leading candidate. i'm leading biden by a lot and i'm leading the republicans to the point where that's over so the leading person for president. and i'm under a gag order by amanda can put two sentences together, given by a court and they are in total conjunction with the white house and the doj, just so you understand this is all done by biden that his people maybe his people more importantly, i don't know. biden knows too much about it because i don't know if he knows about anything. but he's nevertheless the president. so we have to use his name and this is done by washington and nobody's ever seen anything like it so we have a judge who is highly conflicted, you know what the conviction is, nobody nobody wants to write about it and i'm not allowed to talk about it if i do, he said i get put in jail so we'll play that game a little bit longer. we won't talk about it, but you're allowed to talk about it. i hope you do because there's never been anybody so conflicted as this as far as the trial itself, it was very unfair. we weren't allowed to allowed to use our election expert under any circumstances. you saw what happened to some of the witnesses that were on our sayyed, they were literally crucified by this man. >> who looks like an angel, but he's really a devil. >> he looks so nice and soft. people's ellie seems like such a nice man. no, unless you sell them in action and you saw that with a certain witness that went through hell and when we wanted to do things, he wouldn't let him he wouldn't let us do those things. but when the government wanted something, they got everything, they got everything they wanted it's a rigged it was a rigged trial. we wanted a venue change where we can have a fair trial. we didn't get it. we wanted a judge change. we wanted to judge. it wasn't conflicted and obviously he didn't do that there's nobody's ever seen anything like it. we had a da who is a failed de da? crime is rampant in new york, violent crime that's what he's really supposed to be looking at. crime is rampant in new york yesterday and mcdonald's, you had a man hitting them up with with machetes. a machete whoever he can imagine, even a machete being wielded in a store in a place where they're reading and he's going rampant and bragg is down watching a trial on what they call crimes, crimes they're falsifying business records. that sounds so bad to me. it sounds very bad. you know, it's only a misdemeanor. but to me it sounds so bad when they say falsifying business that's a bad thing for me. i've never had that before i'm falsifying. you know what falsifying business records is in the first degree? they say falsifying business records sounds so good, right it means that legal expense. >> i paid a lawyer totally legal are paid a lawyer a legal expense and a bookkeeper without any knowledge from me correctly marked it down in the books. a very professional woman, highly respected, she testified marked it down to the books as a legal expense. so a legal expense paid a lawyer is a legal expense in the bucks. it's not sheet rock construction or any other thing. it's a legal expense. think of that this is what the falsification of business records were. and i said, what else are you going to call it what else are you going to call it now i would have testified i wanted to testify the theory is you never testify because as soon as you test for anybody if it were george washington, don't testify because they'll get you on something that you said slightly wrong and then they sue you for perjury but i didn't care about that. i wanted to but the judge allowed them to go into everything that i was ever involved and not this case. everything that i was ever involved in which is a first in other words, you could go into every single thing that i ever did. was he a bad boy here? was a bad boy there emma lawyer said what. do you need to go through and all you wanted to do as testify simply on this case. because i would have loved to have testified to this day. i would have liked to have testified. but you would have been you would have said something out of whack like it was a beautiful, sunny day and it was actually raining out and i very much appreciate the big crowd of people outside. that's incredible. what's happening? the level of support has been incredible so the whole thing is legal expense was marked down as legal expense. think of it. this is my this is the crime that i committed that i'm supposed to go to jail for 187 years for when you have violent crime all over this city at levels that nobody's ever seen before, where you have businesses leaving and businesses are leaving because of this, because heads a business is a man, we don't want to get involved with that. i could go through the books of any business person in the city and i could find things that in theory, i guess let's indict him, let's destroy his life but i'm out there and i don't mind being out there because i'm doing something for this country and i'm doing something for our constitution. it's very important far beyond me at this can't be allowed to happen to other president's. it should never be allowed to happen. in the future. but this is far beyond me. this is bigger than trump, this is bigger than me. this is bigger than my presidency and the people understand it because i just see a poll just came out the daily mail that was the first one came out. who's done last night right after the verdict where i'm up six points six points from what we already where we were leading fairly, fairly substantially, we're up six points in the daily mail, paul, now, maybe other posts come out. it says something differently. but a lot of people have predicted it because the public understands and they understand what's what's going on. this is a scam. there's a rig trial it shouldn't have been in that venue. we shouldn't have had that, judge. he should have loud allowed us to have an election expert. we had the best expert, most respected expert head of the federal elections commission. he was all set to testify. he was waiting for two days and when it was his turn bragg's people protested and the judge knocked amount said you can't testify. he actually said you can't testify for anything having to do with the trial. you can say what the federal elections is. well, that doesn't help everybody knows that but you can't testify. so essentially, he wasn't able to testify. other people weren't able to testify. but with these people they were able to use people salacious by the way. and nothing ever happened. there was no anything, nothing have happened. did they know it? >> but they were saline as salacious as they could be. and it had nothing to do with the case but it had to do with politics. and do you notice the timing? the timing was perfect. this case was dead. it was dropped by every agency, every governmental board. it was dropped by the highly respected southern district they said no, there's no case here it was dropped by federal election, and that's what it's about this, about a federal election, not a state election. you're not even allowed to look at it. they took the state and the city and they wanted to a federal election. they're not allowed. >> the people from federal election, southern district, and washington dropped the case. >> everybody dropped the case. there wasn't okay. cy vance dropped the case. and when bragg came in, he said this is the most ridiculous case i've ever seen. and who would have a certain person again, gag order. who would have a certain person like this ever testify? he said this is essentially one of the worst people i've ever seen ever to testify is that the craziest case i've ever seen. this is bragg they want to announce i was running for president longtime later they decided to revive this case and they got to judge judge marsha and who was responsible for another case that was also brought a destroyed the life of a very good man by the way, destroyed the life of a very good man. who went to prison once. and then they just put them in prison again because they said he he lied. he didn't lie. i looked at the statements he made. in fact, he didn't remember something and they put him in jail. again. they've destroyed him with me for many years. he was an honorable person. he was an honest man and if you look at what he did supposedly it never happened. there's never been anything like this over the education of his grandchildren over he didn't report that he had a car or two cars on his income. i don't know. i wonder how many people here have cars. i wonder how many people said, oh gee, i have a car that's worth x does how to even figure it. and i guess you do have to report it, but i would say probably almost nobody does. nobody even thinks about it. they put this man, they destroyed this man but they put him in jail again because they didn't want them to testify they didn't want them to testify. that's why he went to jail and put them in jail twice he's 77-years-old now, normally, i'd say that's an old guy. but i don't feel 77. nobody ever says that about me. i'd like them to say qi. we have to have a little sorrow for this man because they just don't say that about me, but maybe i'm better off that way. i think i'm probably better off that way, but they put him in jail twice and you have to see what they put them in jail anyway is threatened by the judge this man was told you're gonna get 15 years in jail if you don't give up trump and he was told that you're going to get 15 years in jail and he made a plea deal because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life and he was told that viciously we're living in a fascist state he was told that viciously so you can go to jail for four months, five months or you can get 15 years in jail. >> so do a play almost who wouldn't do that plea. everyone does those plays. it's a horrible thing there's a whole group of lawyers that fight that it's so unfair. it's so unfair. but they destroyed his life. so many other things you look at southern district didn't want to bring the case nobody wanted to bring the case and then, you know, who didn't want to bring the case. most of all his brag brag didn't want to bring it, but then he brought it and they tried to make it a different case. they didn't say legal expense equal legally threads. >> again, if i wrote down and paid a lot and by the way, this was a highly qualified lawyer. now i'm not allowed to use his name because of the gag order. but you know, it's a sleazebags. everybody knows that. took me a while to find out but he was effective. he did work, but he wasn't a fixer. he was a lawyer, you know, they like to use the word fixer. he wasn't a fixed who was a lawyer at the time? he was a fully accredited lawyer. now he got into trouble not because of me. got into trouble because he made outside deals and he had something to do with taxi cabs. and medallions that he borrowed money and that's why he went and then he pled to three 33 election violations and as soon as i saw that i said, i wonder why he did that. he pled, he took a deal now it took a deal because he wanted to get off in other words, i'll take a plea deal and i want to get off. and he wanted to make a deal with the southern district and they wrote the worst report, i think i've ever seen on any human being other than the report that was written on james comey by the inspector general, a very great inspector general actually wrote a report that was so bad. >> this one was possibly worse the southern district, the judge didn't let us use it. he said it's hearsay. i said it's not hearsay. wouldn't let us use it. this is about the man but he got in trouble for a very simple reason because he was involved with borrowing a