a couple of holdouts initially, and they are now of one of cord. >> shannon: do you think maybe they were convinced, whatever the disagreement was, if there was a disagreement, they asked for the pecker testimony and the cohen testimony, the rereading of the jury instructions, do you think the fact that we didn't hear from them again after that, that that one section or that one conflict was what they needed to get to something now? >> i think the jury instruction was pretty pro-prosecution. i think a lot of the evidentiary rulings were pro-prosecution. so what you are going to get with a verdict is pretty much what you've gotten up to that point. what are the rulings? what evidence has come in? what evidence has been excluded? so the expert they never heard from. the jury is only as good as the information they are getting. >> shannon: well, so that gets to my question, you all having -- and you have handled some very high-profile cases. is there a situation when afterwards jurors may hear more of the story, things that were excluded, things that the defense argued for and could not get in, and then possibly hearing from a juror at another point, oh, we didn't know this was an option, that was an option, we didn't know they excluded an expert who may have been able to tell us more about federal election law. i guess that's the kind of thing that if they talk, we could finally get some more information from them about how those decisions impacted to where they got to eventually. >> there have been many cases where the juries, after they bring in a verdict, they learn in the media that there were aspects of the case that they were not aware of, and that they wish they had been aware of. sometimes they have some, you know, buyers remorse about the verdict, and that can play into that. sometimes they authentically do here information they wish they had had and didn't. i think, shannon, a big part, and trey can probably speak to this, as well, a big part of this case and the cases i have been involved in, in federal court, in big cases, judges are very, they are loathe at the idea of stopping the defense from proving things that the defense says are essential to their case. so, in these big cases where you don't want to get reversed and where it would be a real resource drain on the system to have to retry the case, if the defense tells you, my defense hinges on having bradley smith come in at explain to the jury what a campaign expenditure is because if they don't hear from somebody who actually has knowledge about the subject, it will be like they are being instructed by michael cohen and david pecker, which is, in fact, what happened in this case, most judges i've ever been in front of would be very hesitant not to let that testimony come in, so in those cases, you don't have the situation where they learn afterwards that there were important things that were withheld from them. >> and i think it is important for your viewers to understand why andy just said what he said. so if you are a judge and you rule against the prosecution at the prosecution wins, there is no appeal or because the prosecution won. so there is almost this built-in incentive to rule for the defense because if the defendant loses and there is an appeal, the judge could very well get reversed and get his or her hand slapped, so the bias is usually to let the defendants do more, arguably, then sometimes they are entitled to do. that was not judge merchan's perspective, not for the four days i was in the courtroom. >> shannon: okay, stay put, guys. i think judge jeanine is available for us, as well. judge, if you can hear me, what do you make of where we are right now? there are not many people out there who think that an acquittal as possible but anything is possible. we don't know where these jurors are going but we do know we will learn soon, judge, what does your gut tell you, having presided over many of these cases yourself? >> judge jeanine: my sense is, generally, that the prosecution is pleased when the verdict is in early verdict. and although there are 34 counts here, the truth is the cons are very similar. i have a big concern about what trey and andy mccarthy were talking about and that is the issue of the judge not allowing the defense to present the case that they needed to in order to represent their client properly. and most important is the fact that, you know, the bringing into testimony of the fact that michael cohen is guilty of a federal election law violation, and that david pecker had a nonprosecution agreement as it relates to the federal election law, and the judge says, i let these in because they go to credibility and because they give you context. well, anyone who understands a case in new york knows that federal election violations are not generally considered credibility cries. lying and perjury and stealing is. but when a judge says i give it to you for context, what was really going on here in this case, we didn't know it until we got to the charge to the jury, was that the judge was signaling to the jury, michael cohen is a matter of law is aiding and abetting and complicit with donald trump in a federal election law violation, which even though i only allowed it for credibility, the truth is he is being charged with aiding and abetting trump, so this is a very easy hurdle for the jury to say, yeah, pecker and cohen got slammed for it, should donald trump be slammed for it? plus, the issue of not being able to bring in brad smith, the issue of not having an adverse charge for a missing witness, that missing witness being the chief financial officer, allen weisselberg, who can talk about the fact that as it related to vouchers, invoices, and checks, donald trump had nothing to do with it. there was no testimony about that at all in the transcript, and the one thing the jurors asked about, that meeting in trump tower, donald trump said three times, i don't pay for stories. i don't pay for stories. and the defense made it very clear that this catch and kill wasn't in any of the three cases that the prosecution was alleging. a lot of this was smoke and mirrors. i can understand that if the jury makes the decision this quickly, you know, maybe they bought into this smoke and mirrors. it is very disconcerting, at this point. >> shannon: okay, just to let folks know, our producers inside say that the jury is back in the room. that judge merchan is back on the bench. and so, we are looking now, it looks like we have some of the verdict coming in. it is quickly coming in here. from inside. we are starting to hear that there are guilty -- there are guilty verdicts from our producer inside, we are hearingh five. one through 12, we have now 13, 14, guilty. 15 guilty. you may hear, there are folks here who have been protesting on both sides of this case. some cheers, some boos, as we are now getting the information from the cherry. we are up to 18 counts, 19, guilty. remember we have 34. 20, guilty. these counts were very similar. what they were looking at, it was different occurrences essentially of the same crime of misdemeanor that was elevated by being linked to a felony, to an underlying crime. we are now 24 counts income all guilty, from inside, this is what we are hearing from our producers. up to 26, guilty. and i remember each of these counts could come a maximum, have four years in jail. president trump will be considered a first-time offender. these are nonviolent crimes. so it seems that it is unlikely the judge would sentence him to prison, but we are now up to 31 counts, guilty, out of 34. 32. guilty. also coming in from inside the courtroom. our producers now say 33 and 34, they are saying guilty on all 34 charges. that is where we are at the jurors. it looks like they are going to leave for the day, suddenly we get this verdict. it is 34 guilty counts on all of this. i want to bring in andy mccarthy, who is here with me, judge jeanine, as well, and trey gowdy. andy, where we go from here, obviously there automatically be an appeal for this trump team as quickly as possible. there is the legal issue of sentencing to come. that's going to take may be months to get to a free trial report on this end to a sentencing by the judge come and reminded the jurors, he's the one who decides, but we have the reality now of a former president for the first time being convicted on 34 criminal counts, guilty on all of these counts, whatever conflict or confusion or questions the jury had, they got the information back to them this morning by the end of day 2 of deliberations. we are at 34 guilty counts for the former president of the united states of america. >> it's a historic trial of a former president of the united states by his partisan adversaries. whatever you think of the results, it's inconceivable in new york that anyone else other than donald trump whatever have been indicted in this way. by alvin bragg, the elected progressive democratic district attorney who campaigned on the fact that he would go after donald trump, that he had a history of going after donald trump. this is a very political exercise. and you have to say that it accomplished what it set out to accomplish. what they wanted was to have a situation where they could call donald trump a convicted felon in the run-up to the election. we have an elected democrat who got that accomplished. he got a very friendly judge, who ruled his way on every important thing, and turned the jury instructions into a road map to conviction. so now i assume with the mission having been accomplished, we will have more procedural regularity, shannon, as you just said, there will be a presentence investigation. there should be a sentencing scheduled and we will go from there. but this case will be appealed, and i hope that there will be more fairness and equity in the appealed and there was in the trial appeared >> shannon: and trey, with the counts, the indictment first came in, there were a lot of people across the political and legal spectrum who said this feels like the weakest case against president trump. something changed along the way. how much of this have to do with the guidance from judge merchan, whether it was the jury instructions, whether it was the decisions on objections, whether it was the decision not to let in certain witnesses that the defense wanted to call? >> all of the above. the verdict is a necessary and probable consequence of everything that happened up to that point. that includes jury selection. it includes evidentiary rulings. i was in the courtroom or the overflow room for different days. shannon, it wasn't just the results of judge merchan's rulings. the tone of his voice was different depending on which side was doing the objecting, so look, i said a week ago, juries usually get it right based on the information they are given. when you don't get to hear from an fec expert, you hear proximity and propensity evidence against the defendant, and by that i mean he was close to two people who were guilty, therefore he must be guilty, and you hear salacious details with stormy daniels, i mean, i think everything was going to be an acquittal. i having been in the courtroom might have been a hung jury, 10-2, 11-1, but the jury resulte given up to that point, so that is an obvious result to me. >> shannon: judge come in appeal takes time. it might be a long time before that is resolved. however it is resolved. but what that means is this white house, the biden-harris campaign free now to call president trump a convicted felon. i got to say, though, over a year ago when president trump was asked, will you drop out of this race if convicted -- not convicted, if indicted, he said no, because i actually think it will help me and my poll numbers. they have done well with fundraising. he has done well in polling. does this help or hurt now in the public opinion where he's got to get independent voters, where he's got to get people who are not necessarily part of his base, now that he's got this conviction -- which may or may not maybe one day be overturned? >> judge jeanine: you know, shannon, i don't have the answer to that question. i want to believe that americans believe in justice, and i think that in their gut, they realized that there is something that is very wrong here. we have gone over a cliff in america. this verdict is a verdict of someone who was forced to fight a 1,000-pound gorilla with both hands to tied behind his back. this was a defendant for whom crimes were created, against whom a judge was picked, that out of the or ordinary, not from the drum, but a judge that was handpicked for this defendant, who denied him the ability to fight the way he needed to fight, who brought in crimes that we have never heard of in new york before, where they had dead misdemeanors that they resurrected into felonies based upon nonunanimous verdicts of crimes that are federal over which no state court or no state judge or prosecutor has jurisdiction, and in the end, with all the smoke and mirrors, at 34 counts, and a hooker, and a guy according to a federal judge is a serial perjurer, we have convicted a former president of the united states of america. we have gone over a cliff. the question is whether or not americo will react to this, whether his numbers will go up or down. i don't know. but i do know what i know, and what i know is that this case is riddled with errors. it is reversible. it will not get through to the appellate division and the first apartment in new york or certainly the court of appeals before the next year. and people say should it go to the supreme court, no, it can't go to the supreme court unless they exhaust all the state court appeals. i am -- i have spent 32 years in this system, and i am totally disillusioned. you had a judge, and you had a d.a., who literally campaigned on making sure that this president would be indicted. we've got an attorney general who did the same thing. this is a new era in america, and i think it goes against the ilk of who we are as americans and our faith in the criminal justice system. >> shannon: so, if you are just joining us, 34 counts, 34 in that indictment against president trump. today the jury comes back unanimously convicting him guilty on all 34 counts. they were all similar in that they had to do with falsification of business records. that was what would have been a misdemeanor. that is where the statute of limitations would have run. and there was another underlying crime, which we didn't find out about what that was going to become essentially, until the closing arguments and th instructions from a judge yesterday. he gave them choices. trey, we have talked about this many times, that they had choices. will we ever know what choice the jury made with the linking this to an underlying crime? >> there only two ways you will know that -- maybe possibly three. on appeal, arguably, the government could be forced to explain what that second crime was. maybe it's in a special verdict form and we haven't seen it. it certainly wasn't read to the jury. it wasn't polled. the jury was just polled, which means each individual juror was asked, is this your verdict and still your verdict? we don't know what that secondary crime was. or a member of the jury could talk. they are not required to. they will be told they don't have to, but sometimes members of the jury will talk, and they will say, this was that extra crime that we found. >> shannon: what do you think, and he? the judge there talked about how people are going to react to this in different ways. we've got a tweet out now from donald trump jr come he says guilty on all counts, the democrats have succeeded in their years long attempt to turn america into a third world blank. november 5th is our last chance to save it. so tough news for the former president legally, but politically, does he get a boost from this on the campaign trail, saying, okay, they did what i told you they were going to try to do to me, now you have to elect me in order to head all of the rest of us off that i predict will come. >> hard for us to gauge, as people who are very involved in politics, because i think at this point in the campaign, the people you are trying to reach other people who aren't all that taken in with politics. for most of the people who are in our world and who followed this closely, i think they are pretty stuck in their positions, and what i have always wondered, and i am not the political guy, we've got a former member of congress that is here, but i thought that the internal polling of the democrats has to tell them, it would seem to me, that being able to call trump a convicted felon in the run-up to the election is worth x number of points in the battleground states, so even if it fires up his base, and it should, and even if jeanine, i think, is quite right, that this is going to change american prosecution and the american justice system for the worse because the flag of politicized prosecution has been planted here in a way that it has never been planted before, but as it plays politically, i think the question is how much is it worth to have that talking point for them in the run-up to the election? >> shannon: yeah, and judge jeanine, we think about that and also the context of the fact, if they are, as we talked about, going to start referring to former president trump as convicted felon donald trump, and whether they are going to use that language, that we also know hunter biden is facing two federal trials, which we can talk about, as well, one of them starting on monday, and the fact that i don't think this trump campaign is going to pull any ps of convicted of something. it does look to many people across the spectrum here in america that a lot of our political fighting has turned to legal warfare, as well. >> judge jeanine: interesting, shannon, we have been calling it lawfare. i think lawfare is far too soft, it's far too benign. this is warfare. this is the taking down of someone, not just politically, but legally, and looking to take away their civil liberties. and you know, as a prosecutor and a judge, my job was to make sure that the guilty were convicted and to make sure that people's civil liberties were taken away -- i understand it is coming out? >> shannon: yeah, judge can hold on just a second, we see president trump now walking out p or let's listen p >> a trial by a convicted 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. the real verdict is going to be november 5th, by the people. and they know what happened here, and everybody knows what happened here. you have a sorrows-backed d.a., and the whole thing, we didn't do a thing wrong, i'm a very innocent man. and it is okay, i am fighting for our country, i am fighting for our constitution. our whole country is being rigged to right now. this was done by the biden administration. in order to wound or hurt an opponent, a political opponent, and i think it is just a disgrace, and we will keep fighting, we will fight to the end and we will win because our country has gone to hell. we don't have a country anymore. we have a divided mass. we are in serious decline. millions and millions of people pouring into our country right now from prisons and from mental institutions, terrorists. and they are taking over our country. we have a country that is in big trouble. this was a rigged decision right from day one. with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case, never. and we will fight for our constitution. this is long from over. thank you very much. >> reporter: [indistinct] [indistinct reporter questions] >> shannon: owen wright, the former president -- the former president speaking there brie