the trump foundation for a 15-year tax fraud. now he has this one. that is a big deal. and i think we should recognize the skill, the talent, and the drive that undergirds everything that happened here. i am, however, also looking at the way trump allies, wanna be trump allies and the republican party writ large is reacting to this. i agree with you, joy. the specter of a republican front-runner being crowned the nominee four days after the sentencing, becoming a felon, is something we never thought he would see in americans history. the reality is the trump team, the rnc. >> republicans across the country think this is a gift to them. eric trump saying today, may 30th, 2024, might be remembered as the day donald j. trump was re-elected. and that is not to say that's necessarily what's going to happen, but it points to this incredible schism in american culture and politics where one, i think earth one, as rachel maddow likes to call it, understands what happened here as a testament to the rule of law and the integrity of the justice system. earth two, which is populated and has been taking over by donald trump, sees this as the very manifestation of a broken system, and it is the thing that will crown him king once again. and that to me is really jarring and deeply distressing. >> i would just add, there's a number of tests on the system here in addition to whether or not he can vote. he can't buy a gun in a number of states. he can't join the military, not that he's planning to do that. he's scheduled to start getting classified briefings once he's the nominee. convicted felons don't get classified briefings. there are a number of moments that are unprecedented, that will be decisions for the government, decisions for others to watch. i have also been struck by what you talked about which is the overwhelming reaction from the republican side in calling this everything from a witch hunt to all of the other terms they're using. what's also been striking to me is the tone that alvin bragg just used. you could see that there was a weight lifting off his shoulders, but he didn't celebrate. he didn't cheer. he was serious. he thanked the jury. he thanked civil servants. he thanked everyday jurors, 12 everyday jurors which i thought was an interesting phrase he used. that's also a similar tone that you're seeing from the white house. you're seeing that from most democrats, i think this is important because this is a moment where i think there's a lot of relief people are feeling out there, democrats. but it's also a moment to recognize this is a serious thing that's happening, and we shouldn't be celebrating in the streets because it's not a moment to celebrate, really. and also, because the campaign is not going to be won or lost over what just happened today and what will be happening later in july. >> and everyone is talk about how justice works. joy made a very important point that this is not to be gamed out and ordered and pushed around and spin and which case do you prefer? this is not a game, and it shouldn't be done for political purposes where campaign operatives might say, well, this topic is better than that one or this is about national security, not pre-presidential activity. no, this happened because it was legally valid so it made it through the process, and it was local so it was less subject, if people at home are keeping track, it was less subject to the federal government issues some of which are real and some of which he's gotten a huge assist from the supreme court. the federal issues. he's not the former mayor or governor in new york, so there aren't those issues. we just heard from the d.a. walking through that. i also in a moment want to get andrew weissmann's response to newsworthy comments by the d.a. not only about letting the sentencing talk through the court process, but also when asked about the threats which we covered. going back down to the courthouse where we have been watching all of this, and many of us have been in that courtroom, vaughn hillyard has been reporting on all of this. we mentioned, vaughn, about the discussion whether there are people in the streets. as you know from being down there, there are days where more people are there, some of whom were sympathetic to the defendant. today earlier, rachel showed we had video of other types of protesters showing up to respond. now that we heard from the d.a., what can you tell us about what's happening down there and the rest of your reporting? >>. >> reporter: i would say there's several dozen folks here. i would hut them more in the category of observers than protesters. the verdict came within a matter of minutes for all of us being alerted the jury was going to read how they decided on the 34 counts. what i can tell you having covers donald trump consistently over the years and consistently two years on the campaign trail, the fact is donald trump is going to do what it takes to try to win the court of public opinion. his son said in a tweet, may 30th, 2024, might be remembered as the day donald j. trump won the 2024 presidential election. it almost is an echo of the testament that the trump campaign made a year ago when he was indicted. you saw donald trump at that time pull away from the rest of the republican field. of course, it was ron desantis who was a florida governor, who said if donald trump chose not to leave the state of florida to be arraigned, he would not help with these extradition. so what you have seen over the course of the last hour since this verdict was read here from lower manhattan, a litany of other republicans including the likes of ted cruz, whose name was evoked often in this trial, as somebody who the "national enquirer" directly targeted or i should say targeted not only him but his wife as well as his father, through headlines, false headlines they posted in the "national enquirer," but he called this a dark day in america. of course, we will wait to see. there is likes of nikki haley, who just a few months ago said america would not vote for a convicted felon. we will wait to see what her response is to these charges, just one week after she said that she would in fact vote for donald trump over joe biden. but this is a moment where i think we often in our role as journalists have to wrestle with the words that donald trump says outside of the courtroom. knowing that 12 jurors who i should say when we talk about these jurors, donald trump's own defense team, they only challenged for cause one of these 12 jurors. they did not protest having 11 of these individuals be seated. for donald trump going out and making his case over the next five months about what took place inside this courtroom may be very different than the reality of what actually did go in. one final point i would make off this when we're following this politically, are the words of michael cohen, from eight years ago having watched this campaign closely. michael cohen was a constant presence around that campaign and the words he said one day during testimony was, quote, i was following directions. and the prosecution asked if he had any regrets about what he did. he said, quote, i regret doing things for him that i should not have, lying, effectuating the goal. i violated my moral compass. time and time again, we have seen donald trump offer loyalty of republican allies and time and again they have come to his aid. the question is does a moment like this and does a character like michael cohen send a signal to others to step aside from the presumptive republican nominee ahead of what is going to be a consequential white house election, guys? >> vaughn hillyard, fair questions. we'll keep up with you tonight. the aforementioned michael cohen who was the star witness in the case will be speaking out for the first type since this verdict dropped tonight on msnbc at 8:00 p.m. eastern as our special coverage continues. we're doing it in teams. andrew weissmann has been standing by to react to some of the news d.a. bragg made. i want to read it, the question was posed by a reporter in the room. quote, do you plan to request a prison sentence? i think when you put aside everything else of what this may mean, and all of the important aspects of justice and the process we have discussed, that is the biggest question out in the country tonight. it was posed. quote, do you plan to request a prison sentence? the d.a. replied, quote, donald trump mfs multiple violations of the gag order, the judge has scheduled a sentencing hearing. we also set a motion schedule, we'll speak in our filings as we have done in our proceeding, end quote. i'm being very precise. at times in the transcripts we would say we don't have that, but every word will be parsed by trump's legal team, and they'll be thinking about whether there will be a process initiated to try to incarcerate him and whether that will be successful. what can you tell us about what we heard? >> i think there are two things to keep your eye on. one is whether they seek a prison term. it doesn't, by the way, they can seek it. it doesn't mean the judge will give it. obviously, donald trump's team will say no. he's a first time offender. if you consider whether he has been convicted, not in terms of his underlying conduct. but one issue is will they seek the prison term? the second is, if they do, when it would be served. you could imagine them trying to figure out a way to deal with the fact, if he is in fact the republican nominee, trying to figure out whether it would be served after the election. depending on what happens. in other words, that is part of the calculus that they're going to be thinking about because one thing that will weigh on judge merchan is going to be if i'm thinking about jailing him for any time, do i do it while the election is pending or do i do it november 15th? in terms of the first part, seeking jail, it is impossible for me to think that they will not factor in that the judge has found ten violations of the gag order. and beyond a reasonable doubt. and those violations are not small things. the last one was a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of a disrespect of the court order to protect jurors. it's hard to think of something more serious. >> so you think they will ask for -- >> jail. >> okay. >> how does the appeals process factor into that? >> so -- >> sorry. >> absolutely, so let me give you a few other factors. the issue is sort of when he might have to serve. not just sort of what the judge does but whether he says you can be out pending appeal. normally, to be out pending appeal, there has to be a serious legal or factual issue presented. now, we all know in steve bannon's case, for instance, the judge said yes. in white collar cases, it tends to be that judges do allow somebody to stay out. that would deal with the sort of issue of how to deal with the campaign. the first issue is does he even get jail time. you have the gag order violations. you have things that show complete lack of remorse. all of the conduct that you just saw, the showing up on tv right after the verdict and basically saying this is a kangaroo court and disrespect jurors and disrespect the judge, all of that goes to, you cannot -- could you think of a defendant with any more lack of remorse? so if you think about the risk of recidivism and the lack of remorse, there is such an array of things for the state to point to. and i think the argument will be, if there is any e-felony case where you would ever send somebody to jail, it's this. and he has to be treated like everyone else. the jurors just did it. the jurors just did their duty. they were willing to say, you know what, even if he's a former president, if it's proved beyond a reasonable doubt, i will do my job. i think the judge will think the same way. >> part of what you're saying is this is on paper a lower offense. so e is down here, a nonviolent felony. but on top of that, you have not one, not two, but several contempt citations for violating this judge. so there's two steps here, joy. there's what we just heard the d.a. say he's going to wait on. they will later tell us through the court process if they request jail. and then what the judge decides. >> and i have another question that goes to both of you because i just quickly googled, in 2018, when the southern district of new york, when the southern district indicted michael cohen, for the same conduct plus some tax vileses, it was the same case, which is why this case made sense as an easily convictable case, because there had been a nonprosecution agreement for david pecker's organization, ami, on the same facts, and michael cohen was convicted on the same facts for the same conduct. he got three years in prison. he was also a nonviolent first offender. he had committed no previous crimes. he had not been a felon before. he was a first offender, and donald trump's justice department, and i have to say that again, donald trump's justice department prosecuted michael cohen and gave him a three-year sentence plus a $50,000 fine. for the same conduct. now, does the -- i know it's a state case, i know it's separate, but it's the same conduct. is it taken into account that a person who was a coconspirator got three years? >> i'm going to add another fact to make your point. one of the reasons he got three years and not a higher sentence is michael cohen cooperated with the mueller investigation. >> he pleaded guilty. >> he pled guilty, he didn't go to trial. that's a benefit in terms of senten sentencing. you get a lower sentence just for doing that. he also cooperated. i know that the southern district says he didn't cooperate with that case, but the mueller case, he got a cooperation agreement and he was given that letter. so the one quibble would be that some of what -- some of what sort of was the result of that sentence was other conduct. so that was something that the judge could consider. but there is no question that one of the arguments, you should come to court and make it, is one of the arguments that the d.a. will make is comparability. the underlaying is going to jail. this is something we have seen in the january 6th cases. it's why i always thought judge chutkan, if she eventually has the opportunity, would send donald trump if he were convicted there to jail, because it's so anathema to the criminal justice system that an underling would go to jail but the boss would not. >> that's how he answered it, if you're joining us we're covering the first ever conviction of a former president in the united states. donald trump convicted on all 34 counts on these felony convictions. if you're keeping track or wondering about all of those counts as we have been reporting, there were some based on his personally signed checks. others on invoices and documents from his companies that his own aides and former sort of officials involved had testified were at his behest. this jury of 12 new yorkers who listened to all of the evidence, convicted across all of those counts, all of those types of documentation. we heard from d. aflt bragg today for the first time he has spoken publicly since he first filed the charges. he's now won this case. i want to play more of what we heard today. >> the 12 everyday jurors vowed to make a decision based on the evidence and the law and the evidence and the law alone. their deliberations led them to a unanimous conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, donald j. trump, is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election. and 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 through the courtroom doors. by following the facts and the law and doing so without fear or favor. >> bragg just speaking within the last hour. jen psaki, you have served in government. you have been around these issues. and you look at a day like today that we have actually never experienced before. we live in a time of both hyperbole and propaganda. if we follow the history and facts, today is significant, one of a kind, may not reoccur for a long time. that might be a good thing for future presidents and veterans of the white house. what does this mean, do you think, in the long run? >> well, i want to go back to a point joy was making earlier, which i have been thinking about all day since we heard the verdict. this was called the zombie case. remember that, for a period of time? there's been a lot of frustration among a lot of americans about the pace of a range of these cases including cases that have not yet ben tried and may not be tried this year. the wheels of justice work very slowly, as we know. the frustratingly slow at some time. i think a lot of people didn't believe we would be at this moment, but what bragg just said, this is a very different defendant, but we arrived at this in the same way we would any other. that's our justice system working. that is how this is supposed to work. i don't mean the outcome. what i mean is you have evidence. you indict. there is a case where the defendant is allowed to testify on his behalf if he chooses. you argue the case, you have a jury of your peers that are selected. the jury of your peers consider it, take it with seriousness as everybody who has been in the courtroom has said, and they made a decision. that's what happened. that's our justice system moving at a slow pace, yes, but working how it should work. i think we should pause for a moment not just on the outcome but the fact there have been questions about how our justice system was working, and we have seen how it can conclude itself. with a jury of peers, of everyday men and women as d.a. bragg described them earlier today. >> i think that's striking. and it's not that we're all trying to do a civics class. but it is striking to hear how the d.a. put it. he talked about the jury. i want to read that, then we have something new from the case. he said, quote, today we have the most important voice of all. that's the voice of the jurors. they have spoken. and donald j. trump has been convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records, thank you, end quote, and press conference. and as we're tracking all of this, i believe we have, i have been told, the verdict sheet, which we have not put up yet in our coverage. this is the actual verdict sheet, as you can see. it's long because there were so many counts. when nicolle, rachel, and i were first breaking the verdict news, we were working off our reporters who were in the room, who were responding to that being read aloud. but this is a transparent process, this is the documentation. joy, this is our system of government. this here is for public review. it could have been split. it could have been half of them. could have been just the checks, could have been one out of 34. could have been an acquittal and we would have been covering that under the rule of law the same way. again, what do you think of this living history? we're putting this on the screen for the first time, the jury's handiwork. >> it's remarkable. going the two days i went to court, the first being during the pecker questioning. it was fascinating to get some time to be in the room with the jury. these were the seven men and five women, you really couldn't get a good look at them. but what you could see is that they were serious about what they were doing. they were paying attention. they were attentive, sometimes trump was not. you can see that they took their job seriously. and when they sent questions in, i think it indicated how they were going to fill out that form. they asked questions that really reflected the order, not just of the prosecution's closing argument, but the order in which they heard witnesse