colleagues who have been covering the trial from the beginning. msnbc's legal analyst lisa rubin, "new york times" investigative reporter susanne craig, and former federal prosecutor and former sdny criminal division deputy chief, kristy greenberg. >> katy, let's set the stage for what's going on at trump tower where we anticipate him speaking in about an hour, right? >> the assembled press is here. this is the first time i believe everyone has been back in this lobby since the donald trump transition. donald trump is going to come town his golden elevators behind me as a man running for president again, as a former president, yes, but also as a man who has now been convicted on 34 felony counts. the first former president to ever be convicted of a crime and certainly the first one, former president to be running again now that they are convicted on all of those felony counts. and he's doing it, guys, at the literal scene of the crime here in trump tower. this is where david pecker and michael cohen testified that the scheme to influence the 2016 election corruptly as the prosecutors successfully argued was hatched, that david pecker was in donald trump's office 20 some odd floors above me as michael cohen and donald trump asked him what he could do for the campaign and david pecker said i can catch and kill stories. your eyes and ears. i can find negative stories about you before they come to light and i can bury them. that is where donald trump is holding this press conference. it's going to start in about an hour. we don't know what he's going to say. we haven't had prepared remarks, but we do also know what he's going to say because he's been saying it all along, that the system is rigged against him, that the court was rigged against him, that the judge was unfair, the prosecution was unfair. will he go after the jury? he's been gagged and told not to do so. will he do so now? he's claimed wrongly, falsely, that this is a political prosecution that the democrats foisted upon him. this is a plot by joe biden. that is not true, but the underlying message here is that he's telling -- overlying message, he's telling the american public, his supporters in particular, that you can't trust the american judicial system. he's already told them you can't trust the electoral system, our elections if he does not win, and we saw what happened in the aftermath of that in january of 2021. now he's saying you can't trust the courts when i'm on the other side of things, when i have been convicted. the question going forward is what does that mean for this election? nobody yet can say, there's been polling, yes, that's shown that people don't to want vote for somebody who's been convicted of a crime, convicted of a felony. that was a hypothetical. it's always wishy-washy to rely on a hypothetical. how would it affect voters going forward, but also, if donald trump is running on an anti-democracy platform saying you can't trust our judiciary, you can't trust our elections, if he is elected again and serves as president again, what sort of president is he going to be when he's somebody who's run against all of these institutions? he decries political prosecutions. it's also something that he's threatening himself if he gets back into the white house. those are the questions that i'll certainly have for donald trump today. >> so many questions, we don't know if he will take questions, and of course there will be other questions that linger up until and beyond election day because this such a first, such an unprecedented situation here in the united states of america. let's talk more about what is to come. lisa, you've been in court every day of the seven-week trial as trump was defendant. now he is convicted felon, and he will face sentencing. what happens next in the legal sphere? >> so in the legal sphere, we're going to see some briefing in the next few weeks on june 13th, the defense will have an opportunity to submit its brief. on june 22nd, we'll see one from the district attorney's office, and of course in between and prior to june 13th in all likelihood, todd blanche has the responsibility given to him by judge merchan of arranging an interview between his client and the probation department. that's necessary because as kristy well knows, prior to sentencing a probation department has to write a report that a judge can rely upon and use to take into consideration when determining what sentence here is appropriate. but most importantly in those briefs, you will see each side's position on what sentence is appropriate. the statute in question, the felony falsification of business records carries a penalty of up to four years imprisonment as well as fines, but neither of those are mandatory and probation only can be the sentence here. the question is whether the d.a. will recommend some term of imprisonment here, and i believe that they will. one reason why is not only were there 34 counts here and anybody else who was convicted of falsification of business records as a felony would likely have that kind of term imposed, but more importantly, donald trump here is not showing any remorse, and remorse is a very important factor in sentencing. in fact, in addition to not showing remorse, he is showing the opposite. there are a number of alleged violations of the gag order that members of the press saw him do transparently in the last couple of weeks that the d.a.'s office never brought to judge merchan's attention in contrast to the ten that he's already found,right? that will be a consideration for them in their post trial briefing as well. consider as you decide what sentence is appropriate that he still, despite your order went after my daughter or went after your daughter, for example, went after matt colangelo, one of the prosecutors. >> even commenting on michael cohen the date of deliberations. >> there's no doubt that trump's defense is going to appeal this, right? here was his attorney todd blanche on "today" about that process. >> i think the recusal issue is meaningful. i think the statute of limitation, the way -- the background of why this case was brought is meaningful. i think that the witnesses, i do not think michael cohen should ever be somebody who can be relied upon to convict somebody. >> what grounds do you see there for an appeal? i mean, that they don't like one of the witnesses, kind of i don't know of any defense attorney who likes the witnesses for the prosecution in any case. >> that's what cross examination is for. in terms of recusal as a basis for appeal, that is an uphill battle. judge merchan went to the new york ethics commission and got an opinion and said, okay, here's the issue with my campaign donation. here's the facts relating to my daughter's employment. what do you think i should do? they said we don't see any conflict of interest here. we think you can partially adjudicate this case, and he agreed. that is in the record. they tried to say there were changed circumstances when there weren't any. there is a clear record here and i guess my question for todd blanche is if you think that judge merchan is compromised because of his daughter's employment, i'd love to see him come out about justice alito and, you know, his wife. i mean, in that circumstance you saw justice alito didn't go to seek any opinion from anybody else before he said i'm fine to preside over the january 6th case. what's good for the goose is good for the gander here and there's one side that's doing this the right way in seeking outside counsel on whether there are conflicts of interest, and the other side isn't. and the double standard couldn't be more clear. >> what would be grounds for appeal? >> i think it's going to be more in the legal weeds, right? we haven't seen a situation where you have the state, you know, crime for falsified business records, and then the step up that makes it the felony in order to conceal the federal election -- it's a state crime, the state new york election law, but then the unlawful means that's part of that is federal. it's tricky and it has r hasn't -- that federal piece is the unlawful means hasn't been used before. i suspect they'll challenge that. however, again, the other crime here that they ended up using was new york election law. i think that was a very smart move from them, and i think it really incident latsed them from the appellate challenge they were expecting if they had just said the second crime was federal. >> sue, we didn't hear from alvin bragg during the trial. he obviously faced a ton of criticism from trump. he did give a press conference. he didn't take a great big celebratory victory lap. he was pretty i guess somber you could even say in his remarks. he expressed a lot of gratitude to his team and really focused on the jury in his remarks saying the only voice that matter is the voice of the jury. saying i did my job, but most importantly the jurors have spoken. talk to us about your observations of how alvin bragg has handled this case from the beginning until now almost the end. >> what i think of how alvin bragg has handled it, i think about new york's attorney general and how after the civil case, letitia james took a victory lap, reminding him of how much interest would be. alvin bragg has been in court some days, very quiet. when i was watching his remarks. i almost saw a thought bubble over his head that said, first of all, he's aware this is not over there. is an appeal coming and i also thought there was a question that was notable to joshua steinglass his leading attorney on this. alvin bragg handled the question. they are being so just even about this. you could barely detect a smile when their victory came in for them, you know, the guilty across the board came in. so i think they're just kind of being the too cool for school is -- they're just very even, and there's going to be long days ahead because this is going to go up on appeal. >> ladies, stay with us. we want to bring in michael cohen's friend and former attorney lanny davis now. thanks for taking the time. have you spoken with michael cohen since the verdict? >> i haven't. he's obviously very busy and i'm just glad to start with the topic. this is a profile in courage, and all credit to michael cohen for taking paint and doing the time. according to donald trump's justice department prosecutors and i hope today somebody can ask him this question. his prosecutors charged this crime. michael cohen did the time and those prosecutors in a written report on sentencing publicly stated that donald trump directed michael cohen toot this crime so every time he complains about this case he forgets that his justice department supervised the southern district of new york prosecutor who is brought the same charges under federal law that exist under new york state law for paying for silence before an election for political reasons that they said constituted a danger to our democracy, not just hush money for sex. they said his prosecutors said this was a serious crime, and michael cohen had to do the time, and then they added the time that michael cohen served was at the direction and coordination of individual one. so his own prosecutors said that mr. trump directed michael cohen to do this serious crime. that's really the focus i wanted all of you to remember today is that document. it's a public document. is the sentencing memo of december 7th, 2018. >> it's katy tur from tower. i know michael cohen is continuing to fight some legal battles, and yesterday there was an appeal to the supreme court regarding his remanding back to otisville jail after he was on provisional release for covid. what can you tell us about that? >> again, i have to be careful. i'm not representing him anymore, but i'm still obligated in many ways. i can only tell you that what he's went through that's a public fact is that the same federal prosecutors who geoffrey berman said were under a lot of pressure from donald trump's justice department, those prosecutors told a federal judge that he was sent back to prison during covid when he came in for a check on his ankle bracelet, but he was asked to sign a document that he wouldn't write a book, and he refused to sign the document. the federal prosecutors denied that was the reason he was sent back to prison and a federal judge said that assertion coming from donald trump's justice department was false. so he went back to prison in the middle of covid because he declined to waive his first amendment rights. a lot of people forget about this bravery. i'm not just lauding michael cohen. i'm stating a fact. all credit to him taking the pain and all of the cross examination accusations against him have been now contradicted by a jury that i always said and always knew were corroborating everything that michael cohen testified to by documents that don't lie, by favorable witnesses to donald trump that can't be accused of being biased and that jury saw the documents, listened to the testimony from someone like home hicks or david pecker, who are friends of mr. trump, and that's why this conviction was not a surprise to me because documents don't lie. >> lanny, it's good to see you. just on a bigger picture, what do you think this conviction, these 34 felony convictions mean to michael cohen? >> again, i'm very hesitant to speak for michael on a personal level. i know his feelings, and i know the pain this family has been through. i know that he's been through a lot of pain, and i've experienced how he's related to his family. one of the reasons he chose to tell the truth and turn away from mr. trump after ten years of working for him was as he said at the time, it was july 2018 when he said i'm doing this for my family and my country. so the answer to your question is i think he feels and has over the time period spoken about the need for vindication at all the pain he suffered. loss of his law license during prison time, and federal prosecutors saying he did this at the direction of the president of the united states that he now has been corroborated, his credibility has now been vindicated by 12 people on this jury. >> lanny davis, thank you so much for being with us this morning. really appreciate it. >> thank you very much. our panel is back with us now. lisa, your thoughts on what we just heard. >> one of the things that lanny davis said i somewhat take issue with and i want to explain why. it is significant that in filings, federal prosecutors said on multiple occasions, not just in the sentencing memo, that what michael cohen did he did at the direction of and for the benefit of former president trump. what i take issue with is the repeated characterization of those prosecutors as trump prosecutors. the career prosecutors in the southern district involved in michael cohen no more belonged to donald trump than some of the career prosecutors in this prosecution belong to alvin bragg. i'm thinking in particular of josh steinglass, for example, who has been with the office for decades throughout at least three different district attorneys. i think he would take umbrage as being described as alvin bragg's prosecutor in the same way that prosecutors in the department of justice would take issue with being described as belonging to a particular president or not. that is antithetical to the way that career prosecutors in the federal or state system -- >> you're right, they're not elected into those positions. it's experience that gets them there. >> it's experience, but it's also a civil service job. it's something that trump very much wants to change about the civil service. you'll remember at the end of his presidency, there was this whole discussion about schedule c employees and sort of taking out of the civil as much as a number of jobs that historically have come with some tenure irrespective of a presidential administration. when we start talking about career prosecutors, we are no better than people who talk about trump judges or obama judge. these people have a commitment to the rule of law and justice. i think that generally speaking of our judiciary as much as i think that about people in prosecutorial offices. and i know that kristy who serves in the southern district probably has a perspective too. >> the southern district of new york has a nickname sovereign district of new york for a reason. the office is fiercely independent. if you read jeff berman's book of what happened during that time frame of how much he was trying to protect the michael cohen prosecution when bill barr came in from the -- i mean, bill barr wanted to have michael cohen's plea vacated because he knew it could affect donald trump down the road. geoff berman kept it in place. this idea that they were beholden to whatever the trump doj was doing, they were not. i completely agree with lisa's point that that's not how the office works. >> katy. >> reporter: lisa, i want to ask you a question about what happened when the verdict was read. alina habba said judge juan merchan was smirking. i was watching donald trump the whole time, i was not watching judge juan merchan. what did you see? >> i saw something so different, katy. i did see juan merchan cover his mouth. on that alina habba and i can agree. but i have a very different interpretation of what he was doing. it was after the verdict was read, after the individual jurors had been pulled. judge merchan put his head down and sort of covered his mouth like this, and my read of that moment was not that juan merchan was trying to cover a smirk or a smile but that he was taking in the gravity of the moment before him, that he had just presided over a five-week trial in which a former president was convicted of a felony for the first time in our nation's history. he was collecting his thoughts, taking a breath and almost sighing understanding what still remained before him and then moving on from there to thank the jurors. i saw a man deeply impacted by the gravity of the moment, not somebody who was mocking what had happened to the defendant before him. >> i know you weren't there yesterday, you've been there every single day but yesterday. that moment, whatever that is, of taking it in, how did you take it in? >> i would think it was just out of character for what we saw with the judge in terms of he's not betrayed a lot of emotion. that didn't strike me as believable. but just it's interesting because we were there every day and sometimes you get really bogged down in the minutia, and we're all doing like minute-by-minute play by plays on the trial, and it really does feel the moment now, it's monumentous, and it's interesting matching those two having gone through the minutia of the case every day and sat there and trying to read the tea leaves. it's something to think that the former president of the united states and the presumptive republican nominee is now a felon. >> as we get ready to hear from him this morning, what are your top questions about kind of where this goes next? >> well, i think, we've been very focused on covering the trial as a legal proceeding, but this has always been politics for them. they're out fund-raising. i think we've gotten fund-raising notes since we've been here. i'm going to be interested both to see his response on the way out of court after he made those quick remarks yesterday. somebody threw him a question that he just didn't and it was why should americans vote far convicted felon. i think that's one thing that is going to be dogging him multiple times a day for the rest of the campaign. and almost just looking to see how the democrats try and weaponize this. it's going to be interesting in battleground states to see if we're going to be getting commercials. we don't know yet. it's going to become a big deal this summer. >> that's something we're going to continue to discuss this morning as w