let's have echo alternate universe in which the civil penalty didn't happen. and these criminal convictions did not happen. from your sense of how he movese through the world and how he deals with humiliation and failure, what do you think he has left to do that he can do in response to this that we should be prepared for? >> he is going to blame everybody other than himself. judge merchan is corrupt. judge engoron is corrupt. michael cohen is a liar, a felon. a rat and everything else he has been calling me for over six years. he will blame everybody else other than himself. he does not understand the concept of accountability. somewhere along the line, i guess, his parents didn't teach him that there are consequences for actions. >> on the consequences question. it struck me, i was in the courtroom one of the days you were testifying. there was this line of people who had come to support donald trump orientation and to be vice president or something. they want to be what you were at some point in your life. a guy that serves donald trump, works for donald trump. you are being like, this is how it worked out for me. they are sitting there watching you. i was in solitary. my law license got taken away all the things i did for this guy. and they are sitting there, i want to do that. allen weisselberg, rikers. the 51 days you did and solitary. jeff sessions no longer has a job. first attorney general. bill barr, rudy giuliani will be disbarred. all these people that were loyal to him. they end up getting werun throu the machine. they get ground up into dust but not him. what does it take to get through that simple message of self-preservation. you are next, dude. do you think how you could possibly communicate that effectively to the people sitting there auditioning to be a person that answers to donald trump. >> in 2018, you may remember, the house oversight committee, i turned and i looked at mark meadows and i said, i know what you are doing. i know the playbook you are trying to run because i wrote it. look what's happening to me. in a few weeks, i am going to prison. i strongly suggest you think before you keep acting the way you are. he did not listen and now look what happened to mark meadows. jenna ellis, kristina bob, rudy. you have everybody. anybody that goes in his orbit o loses everything. i would turn around and say to them, this is not the job you want. look at what happened to me. look at the arc of my life. i retired. i was 30 night. i am not a rags to riches story thanks to donald. i am reaches to rake story thanks to donald. you asked a great question. what will it take? 51 days of solitary confinement as well as having the president of the united states weaponize the department of justice by losing a complicit attorney general to violate your constitutional rights to create a counterfeit document. a fraudulent document to mandate you sign it and if you don't they take that fraudulent document and remand you back to prison after putting you in a freezer for a few hours then ultimately shipping you up for more solitary confinement. that's what it's going to ftak >> nis one more question, michael. it's not about you specifically. i listened to stormie daniels that you did on your podcast and she hasn't done a lot of talking outside of corporate she was treated the same way you were when she took the stand. you will mentioned the three times donald trump is mentioned of. the fourth is e. jean carroll who also gut a very large civil verdict against donald trump. he has not been lucky in his dealings with strong women who have been willing to fight back. i want to ask about her. what did you make -- her willingness to step forward and deal with the same thing you did, as you said, you were humiliated. they attempted to try to humiliate you on the stand and they did that to her. i want your assessment of her as someone who interviewed her for your podcast and someone who so she went through that even before you hit the stand. what do you make of her role in this case? >> she is unflappable. people discount her because of her profession. it bothered me a lot. the porn star this. what they were trying to do is discredit her in the eyes of the jury. once again, i think it was a poor decision by todd blanche or susan necheles. they could not have a guy saying that. they would say the same things, think it was a poor decision to go after her. people don't know unless you've read her book, she is wickedly smart. i think she graduated valedictorian of her high h school class. she is much smarter than they sh are. whether you like her profession or you do not, i'm not sure why, it's anybody's business, but she is not somebody who is easily pushed around. she demonstrated that. she was unflappable. she was rock solid. she was going to speak her truth, and she did. >> was there any doubt -- you had a campaign email, you aren't on the campaign but they were focused on winning the election. was there any doubt among the people on donald trump's team that he had in fact had that sexual encounter? they made that an issue in the case. they tried to deny it. >> again, that was something i am certain that donald trump dictated to the various different attorneys. i want it this way. i wanted that way. and why they listened after you see what happened to someone like myself, why? >> i'm getting whiplash year. >> do you think they were back to attend trial? >> that's a great question. it's funny because katie phang posted something about have done jr. must've lost paper scissors and rock. they took tremendous offense. this is what they took offense to. ivanka never showed. i don't think jared ever showed up and neither did melania. you have to ask why? i can understand why melania did not, to be honest. hush money case in the notion of donald having this sexual relationship, not just with stormie daniels, but with l kar mcdougal as well. i'm sure melania was trying to preserve perrone sense of identity and maybe to protect barron as well. rr >> if you want to treat that decision with the honor think it deserves that a human level, you would ness trump's counsel invoke melania repeatedly. blaming her for coming up with the locker room talk defense. >> they introduce her to the jury. that's why wonder why she never showed up. >> andrew weissmann is also not in this room like lawrence is not in this room but wants to ask a question. andrew, you are allowed to ask michael cohen a question. >> hi, michael. hi, done you. i have a question about the actual last witness in the case on the defense case. bob costello. we all got to read a series of emails, some of which you are em on and some that were happening behind your back which i think, the jury were led to believe, probably concluded, that it was a huge effort that was undertaken by him, by rudy giuliani, and by defendant trump to keep you from cooperating so you would not flip. i was wondering if you could take us back to that time as to what was it within you that new to not go with bob costello and go with a petrillo and end up breaking with trump world and seeing this was not the road that was being orchestrated for you was not where you wanted to be? >> that's a great question, andrew. from the first meeting i had with him and jeffrey, all they wanted me to do was sign every trainer agreement and all they were interested in doing -- bob castillo was interested in was n promoting himself and his relationship with rudy giuliani. i never liked rudy and i never trusted rudy. i watched him try to manipulate the game when he was trying to get more involved in the trump sphere. every time that bob castillo would mention rudy giuliani, there was a picture of his cell phone he is trying to prove that he just spoke to rudy. i realized that what they're doing to me is what i have seen in the past. that was also when they did the same with, i think it was either paul manafort or steve bannon, with interrogatories when they were working with the lawyer in order to ensure that donald's responses to the interrogatories match that of either been in our manafort. when something sits wrong in your, and you've got to follow your gut? in an exam they say go with your first answer? when you start scratching off it's usually the wrong answer? my initial impression was stayaway -- i wanted to keep him around so i could pick his brain, whatever is there. what i was most concerned about was the fact that he was going to run back to rudy who was going to use that information in order to ingratiate himself into donald. i realized i was being set up. >> can i confirm it was rudy, drunken giuliani. >> michael: and danya perry, thank you for being here. this was an unusual interview and talk to all of us. >> i feel okay because i had my crackerjack lawyer next to me. >> this starts a different part of your life now. putting this behind you and we wish you all the best. >> great to see you. straight we will speak with jamie raskin in a moment. i am interested in getting his reaction in terms of what happened today. somebody who has been so much a central part of trying to get accountability for trump's alleged crimes in washington and explaining them and explaining constitutional law to the american public. jamie raskin is in a singular position. is michael and danya leave us, he has his own place in history here. shakespearean . he is in the middle of it. >> i think what i loved about ab your conversation that we can drink and is he is complicated. i think trump's legal team erred in flattening him. the jury could see his peaks and valleys. they could experience his story in part because of the work of his lawyer danya perry and preparing him not to flatten the trump experience. i think it aided his credibility to say i love parts of my time with trump. everyone told the same story. michael cohen told it 17 -- he was the last witness but in terms of telling the same story about catch and kill and you heard from -- he comes in at the end. there was such a gap between the way a lot of people in the media, not us, but people covered michael cohen and the way he was introduced to the jury with all of his peaks and valleys. i think they did not look away from the valleys. they did not look away from the crimes. they didn't look away from the things he did wrong. d danya perry and the prosecutors prepared him to own the crimes he committed on trump's we have. in the end, the jury was capable of assessing what he did wrong, who he did it for, then they were instructed by judge merchan to corroborate it and you have to look at those four pieces of evidence i wonder if that was what they were trying to do. >> there is such a connection to the january 6 case and that everyone involved were trump people except stormy daniels. none of these were people who went to this as his enemy just like the january 6 case. these are people in the administration who were allies of trump and wanted him to be president and wanted him to win. when they went over the january 6 committee, the true they had to tell was dampening to him and it was the same thing. david pecker was a mustache even as he was testifying. >> as was hope hicks and jeff ef mcconney. >> they were still trump people. >> there is a tendency that history will judge things a certain way. we don't know because it depends who. i think of john dean a lot. he was the guy that turned on nixon and said, he came clean. he is remembered for that. that is john dean. that is what he is remembered for. he got to a lot of funny business before that moment which is less remembered. >> there's a reason he was in a position as >> john dean was chin deep in that step. he had a moment of conscious and came forward and told the truth about what he was seeking. he is remembered as a hero for e doing the right thing when it mattered. i think there's something to take away from that. >> michael cohen's testimony was subjected to a high level of scrutiny but the jury upon direct instruction from the judge. judge merchan said keep in mind that michael cohen for all the other ways he has been be described is an accomplice in the charged crime so therefore you may not accept his testimony. you may not accept his testimony except if it's corroborated by other evidence and testimony. you cannot take it on his word. as michael just explained, everything he testified to the was substantively important was corroborated by other people and by documents. join us knows congressman jamie raskin of maryland, the top democrat on the oversight committee in the constitutional law explainer in chief to the american public. he served on the january 6 committee and the lead manager and donald trump's second impeachment trial which is about trump trying to overthrow the government by force. it's an honor to have you. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> let me ask you first of all if we have been talking about this in a way that is wrong or if you feel like the media reaction, the expository work we have been trying to do explaining what happened and it's importance is off-base. have we been getting it the ve wrong way around? >> no, resonate with the conversation i was just listening to. i take great pride in what has happened because i feel it such a sweet vindication of the rule of law and all the complicated parts of it that frustrate people because it slows things down like the presumption of innocence. the fact you need a unanimous verdict among 12 citizens randomly drawn. the fact the defendant does not have to testify and can elect not to testify. like due process and the right to appeal which undoubtedly donald trump, as a convicted felon, will exercise in order to exercise his appeals rights and he has a right to do that. i think we can feel proud the system of justice and rule of law within liberal democracy has survived. i also have felt proud actually about being a politician because most politicians do not behave like donald trump. the first thing he ever ran for was president and that was an act of great hubris which paid off for him. most of us go out and try to get things done for our constituents then we ask for votes. we don't view it as an exercisee in celebrity and glamour. and yet, trump to the extent he got involved in politics was about shaking down the president of ukraine to make up lies and dirt about his opponent or paying hush money to keep the truth out of the mainstream of public opinion. or inciting a violent insurrection to overthrow an election and try to conduct a coup against the peaceful transfer of power. most politicians do not behave like that. if you do not behave like that, you might not be the richest person in the world, and you might not get to own your own hotels and islands and so one. you can serve people and that's what it's about. the minute a politician no longer acts as a servant of the people but master the people like a monarch or king, that's the time to evict, reject, impeach, convict, prosecute, get them out of the way becauset democracy is all about serving the people. those of us who aspire and attain public office is nothing but servants of the people. >> in your role as a politician, as you put it, you have played key roles to hold trump accountable. the january 6 investigation and the second impeachment of trump, obviously. there are people looking at the reaction from republicans tonight who were looking at the trump instant efforts to fundraise off of this conviction tonight, who were looking at the predictions that trump and his allies and even some independent observers saying it will make him a martyr. this was somehow help him politically. how do you view that -- first, how do you view that? do you share that perception? how do you factor that into calculus as to how much work should be done to hold him accountable? particularly when we do not have expectations he will end up in a prison sentence or keep him from running again or anything else that might matter to him a great deal? >> you have to celebrate the jury system. when the country started and in its british antecedents, a lot of juries were composed of people from a particular craft or profession. you literally had to know about bricklaying in order to judge a bricklaying case and so on. in the american example, we draw from the whole community. it's a cross-section. that's one of the beautiful things about what we saw happen today. we brought impeachment charges against donald trump for inciting insurrection in the vote in the house of representatives would 232-197. we got all the democrats and 10 republicans. there were still 197 people who saw the insurrection happen and saw exactly what trump did who voted no. that we got to the senate and the evidence was overwhelming and we had a 57-43 vote which is not enough. we were 10 votes shy of the two thirds requirement. look what happened in that jury today. it was unanimous. 12 people who were drawn without political or partisan resonance or implications to their appointment. they were just citizens and they study the facts and scrutinize the witnesses and they came back with a verdict that vindicated common sense. you have to put your faith in the people. it doesn't mean it's failsafe. it doesn't always work, but the people here have done their job. the jury did the job and the judge did an excellent job of clarifying every step of the process. >> in terms of faith yiin peopl there are nine people in the country does not have a lot of faith in right now at the fa united states supreme court. we are waiting there verdict on among other things, their ruling on among other things the case as to whether or not presidents are immune from prosecution. aside from the question of potential recusal from justice alito and thomas which i know you have written about and advocating on strongly, what are you expecting from the supreme court in terms of that immunity rolling. which of the public understand about when impact that might have on this verdict today and the other pending cases against trump? >> the main thing we can expect from it is to leave and postponement. that is clearly the political logic that was operating when the supreme court did not simply summarily affirm a brilliant d.c.'s circuit court opinion, unanimous bipartisan decision the president is not above the law. of course the president cannot order out assassinations and remain immune from prosecution so long as he is not impeached and convicted in the senate. something that is never happened in our history with our four impeachments that went to senate trial. they have slowed everything down. they will probably slice the baloney fine and take up a bunch of completely unnecessary questions, rendering advisory opinions azeri are not supposed to do about, what if it were a crime that was clearly outside of the president's duties. if it was inside the president's duties are on the line or near the line, they will make it seem like a far more complex case than it is in order to justify the post, and delay which is the whole purpose of taking it up. they should've denied cert as they do more than 99% of the cases they should've summarily affirm with the d.c. circuit had done and that magisterial totally comprehensive opinion. >> congressman jamie raskin, it's an honor to have you with us. thank you for the time. we've got much more of our special coverage ahead. i have to tell you. mary trump will be joining us for her first interview since her uncle donald trump was convicted by a jury of his co peers. it's our ongoing special coverage of the yi unanimous guilty on all counts verdict against former president trump, the first-ever american president to be convicted of one crime let alone 34 felonies. we will be back. why choose a sleep number smart bed? can i make my side softer? i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. now, save 50% on the slee