tonight on all in. >> breaking news has come in that we are reading across the newswires, guilty. count one. guilty verdict, count two. guilty verdict, count four. so three and four. >> donald j trump still guilty on 34 felony counts. >> no one ever says that about me. i would like them to say we are to have a little sorrow for this man. >> in the republican standardbearer reveals that his conviction is an honor. >> in a way i am honored. salacious. by the way. and nothing ever happened. if it were george washington, was he a bad boy here, was he a bad boy there? >> tonight, major questions about the sentencing of donald trump. >> how is that going to affect the rnc? does he have confinement? if he goes to prison, what does that look like? plus, the trump campaign threats to those who won't back a felon. and why dreams of a hung jury should give us all a little hope. >> the 12 everyday jurors about it to make a decision based on the evidence and the law. >> all in starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. today, for the first time, america's woke up in a country where the presumptive republican nominee has been convicted of 34 felonies. to adopt a phrase that i become very comical over the last eight years, it looks like donald trump is finally not wriggled his way out of this jam. in this one instance there is finally been some account ability for a man who up until now has managed to avoid it at nearly every turn. today in a traditionally unfocused press conference the atlantic deemed a quote vocal rampage, the convicted ex- president made his way to a rolodex of grievances, lashing out at the judge, the media, michael cohen, stormy daniels, the defunct january 6th committee, and just about everyone else. >> this is a case where if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone. i wanted to testify. the theory is you never testify, because anybody, if it were george washington, don't testify. because they will get you on something that you said slightly wrong and they will sue you for perjury. they were able to use people's salacious, and by the way, nothing ever happened. i don't feel 77. nobody ever says that about me. i would like them to say gee, we have to have a little sorry for this man. they just don't say that about me. and by the way, this is a highly qualified lawyer. i am not allowed to use his name because of the gag order. but he is a sleazebag. i am very honored to be involved because we are fighting for the constitution. >> and went on and on like that, more or less, for more than half an hour. and while this is something of a tired thought experiment, i do wonder what the reaction would be if president biden delivered a similarly rambling and incoherent address the day after he was convicted of nearly three dozen felonies. for his part, the president briefly addressed yesterday's news this afternoon. >> the american principal that no one is above the law was reaffirmed. donald trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. it was a state case, not a federal case. and it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens. the 12 americans. 12 people like you. after careful deliberations the jury reached a unanimous verdict. it is reckless, it is dangerous , it is irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict. our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years. and it is a cornerstone of america, our justice system. we should respect it and not allow anyone to tear it down. >> it was a forceful rebuke of trump, and unenforceable sentiment about the rule of law. hammering home to voters that his political opponent is a convicted criminal. as politico reports, the president's campaign team does not view his opponents conviction as likely to meaningfully change the trajectory of the campaign. and it's true, we don't yet know if or how trumps conviction can impact the campaign. not at all. i would argue on the other hand, generally holding everything else constant is never a good thing when a nominee for one of the major two political parties is convicted of 34 felonies. it might be prudent to remind voters of that fact whenever possible. again, just spit balling here. the question of how trumps's conviction will alter this case of what one of many open questions. we still don't know what the presidents sentence will be or if they will seek incarceration. if jail time is on the table we don't know what that would look like for a criminal who is legally entitled to secrecy -- action. it is unclear if trump violated his gag order yet again when he attacked michael cohen in that clip i played a moment ago. it goes without saying we are genuinely out past the known universe here legally and politically. donald trump is a convicted criminal. he has been found guilty on all charges by a jury of his peers. he also very well may be the next president of these united states. what happens next is anyone's guess. i am joined now by the utah democrat on the oversight committee. he served on the january 6th committee and was lead manager in donald trump's second impeachment trial. it's good to see you, congressman. we got a chance to talk to you last night in the aftermath of the verdict. i would like to start with i asking about the reaction we are seeing from the republican party as a whole. i am a little taken aback by it. the level of vitriol, the unanimous performative outrage about this, the stridently authoritarian language, the threats for reprisal of political prosecutions, et cetera. what you make of all this? >> it just demonstrates the rigid obedience and coldness of the republican party. but it does not make any sense in terms of their history. i was thinking back about bill clinton's impeachment, when they impeached him over a sexual encounter and then saying it depends on what the meaning of the word is is. can you imagine if bill clinton had actually paid $130,000 in hush money to cover up and then laundered it in different ways to cook the books? could you imagine what they can starr report would've looked like then? they would've been calling for capital punishment of oakland. they were riding so high and mighty on the horse of moral righteousness. and here they totally deflect from all the facts of what happened. they basically spit in the face of the jury system. they completely disregard the fact that donald trump had every right in the full panoply of rights afforded to criminal defendants in the united states of america including the presumption of innocence, a jury trial, the right to testify if you wanted to, which he didn't, and so on. but they abandoned all of that. and it is just shocking. but it is fitting for a party which is now walking down the road of donald trump and vladimir putin and viktor orban. and they have a lot more in common with the far right parties abroad than they have in common with the party that abraham lincoln created, which was a pro-freedom, prounion, anti-conspiracy theory, pro- rule of law, pro-constitution party. and they have abandoned all of that. >> the speaker of the house, mike johnson, said he knows some of the supreme court justices personally and he is sure they are as upset about this as he is and thinks the supreme court should step in somehow. again, i am not a civil procedure buff personally or federal criminal procedure buff, but that they should step in and vacate the conviction. what do you think? >> well, you know, the mob lawyers and mob bosses always say that in the courtroom it is not what you know, it is who you know. and it is not whether the law is on your side, it is whether the judge is on your side. and basically, from donald trump on down now in the gop we have a mob conception of the rule of law. we know some justices on the supreme court. we can overturn this election. we can reverse the verdicts that 12 jurors found. we can deal with this through the connections we have. and that, of course, just invites an inquiry into how did all these people get onto the supreme court? what was the role of corporate dark money? and how did they keep the attorney general of the united states, merrick garland, then the chief judge of the d.c. circuit off the supreme court? he happens to be my constituent, so i followed that when closely. mitch mcconnell said 11 months was too short a period in which to conduct a hearing. and to put someone new on the supreme court, it should be left up to the people in the next election. even though barack obama had been elected into one of those true blue verifiable four year presidential terms that the president gets under the constitution. but when ruth bader ginsburg died in late september of 2020, in the next nine or 10 weeks they barreled through the nomination of amy coney barrett or whatever and totally abandoned the idea that that was too short a period of time. the voting had already started, early voting had already started in a number of states and they pushed it through. so we have a court that is totally gerrymandered at this point with the most ethically suspect practices, like they have billionaire sugar daddies who fly them all over the world and pay for different family expenses like private school tuition and cars. so the whole justice system has been brought into disgrace by the tactics of the right wing in america. >> yeah, it was striking to me, johnson saying i know them personally and i think they would be upset about this. that is quite a thing to say about the people who may eventually, i think this case probably will reach them in some form or fashion. finally, on this question of political prosecution, i mean, obviously the rallying cry of the 2016 campaign was lock her up. next was a call for imprisoning a political opponent. during his term in office the president routinely and publicly urged political prosecution of his enemies and opponents. on jeff sessions who he kept score on for not doing it, and on bill barr. this is a constant theme in the trump years. now you have all these republicans sort of setting the groundwork, saying look, with you pushed us into it. when we get back in power we are going to engage in political prosecution. >> i mean, that is fetishistic rhetoric and fetishistic topics where all politics are seen as ad hominem and character assassination, using what should have been an objective law enforcement system to target enemies. and you have a situation with donald trump who is like a one- man crime wave and who is out there violating all sorts of ethical boundaries. and when the law finally catches up with them they say okay, now you're really throwing down, we are just going to turn the guns on you as if they haven't been trying to do that to joe biden for the last year in the oversight committee where they cooked up this completely farcical impeachment crusade. but they have not been able to find it, despite their very liberal distortion of all of the evidence and the facts. >> it fell apart under its own wake, because the facts were not there. and in the end there is something reassuring that in some form or fashion and in some venues, the actual, factual basis of this stuff matters. thank you so much. >> you bet. >> kristy greenberg is the former deputy chief for the southern district of new york. tonya perry also represented michael cohen during this trial, they join me now. i want to start with you in both of those roles that we had one last night as michael cohen's attorney, and obviously you know the criminal justice system very well. we are going back and forth today internally on whether the gag order is still in effect. do you know if it is or not? >> great question. michael called me today and he said i think trump just violated the gag order, calling me a sleaze ball and all manner of things. i had to look it up. it seems that justice merchan has not lifted it, so it is still in place and will remain so until either he loses jurisdiction on appeal or he lifts it. >> that is your understanding? because he clearly was attacking michael cohen as one of the witnesses. there are some people who say the gag order is there to preserve the integrity of the trial, the trial is over, so maybe it is gone. but your understanding is that it is still in effect? >> i had thought that was the purpose, that you don't want to infect the jurors or the jury pool before they are impaneled. you don't want to intimidate the witnesses. in some logical way you think well, it is done when the trial is done. but no, there still is a sentencing. there still is this maybe just penumbra or cloud that still hangs over. i think that passions are inflamed, for sure, anger around the country. and so i know personally from michael's experience, and even derivatively from my own, that there is a tremendous amount of rancor, to say the least, out there that is still directed at the trial witnesses and no doubt at the jurors, where their anonymity to be lost. that will remain in place, of course. >> yes, although there was some reporting today of certain message boards that are fans of the former president, trying to get people to go after them. let's talk brass tacks here on what happens next. a lot of questions about sentencing. i guess the first question is okay, so that sentencing on july 11th might get pushed back a little bit, but it's probably going to happen sometime this summer. what do you think is reasonable? just level set for us. if you are working in that office, to ask for, or for a judge to grant for sentencing. >> the first thing they are going to do is look at what probation recommends in the report. >> which, that's going to happen in probably the next few weeks that he will sit down with a probation officer? presumably in new york? >> yes. >> sitting there next to the secret service? >> presumably so. >> with the p.o. there? and the p.o. was saying okay, so what was your last job? i'm doing a bit, but that is what's going to happen? >> yes. and they will go through all of their standard questions, though, again, so much of it is public knowledge with him. so it may be a bit redundant. but they will go through that process with him and come up with a recommendation. the parties will both get a copy of that report. generally the report is not made public, that you will see snippets of that report in both the briefings from either side when they quote to that report. >> in the report will generate a recommendation? like a top line, like four months, time served, home confinement, or whatever? >> yes, that is typically what you see. >> that is the basic text that is the template? >> yes. again, neither party is, neither party needs to follow that. but generally the court does give that a fair amount of weight because they tend to be more neutral. so both parties will look at that, they will then decide look, i think in this circumstance in terms of thinking what affairs sentenced here would be, one thing that you look at, one factor is relative culpability. michael cohen has already been sentence for the same thing, and he was sentenced to three years in prison. granted, he was also sentence for other crimes and not just this one. however, that was part of the sentence. and during that sentence, judge polly said, i am paraphrasing here, but that those campaign- finance violations were a danger to democracy. and they were serious enough for him to use that kind of language. and we heard that same language in the closing here. joshua stein last said you heard from todd blanche that influencing an election, conspiring to do that, that is democracy. no, this was subversion of democracy. we need the electorate to be informed, to have access to accurate information, and this was an attempt to defraud the voters. so when you have that same language mirroring in a sentence of someone who is, i think admittedly, less culpable than the person he was doing this at the direction of, it is hard to see how the prosecutors would not ask here. >> i would just add in, another thing the judge looks at is comparisons. other sentences that like defendants have received, not just in this case, michael cohen, as you say, but other defendants who have been convicted. >> defrauding business records. >> correct. i looked at this, i co-authored a paper for the brookings institution and we looked at hundreds of other sentencings coming out of new york for the exact same crime, and always with a bump up to a felony, in this case. and people get prison terms. not just, even first-time offenders. even for the same type of crime they will get a prison term. in this case we have someone who subverted an election, as the jury found, and also has not only been non-repentant, of course, he did not plead guilty to this. he was convicted. that he has constantly thumbed his nose at this judge and system, and has been continuous. >> yeah, personally my feelings about prison are we wildly over incarcerate, wildly too long sentences, the american sentencing system is messed up. my desire to see a prisoner go to jail is zero. i will say, it is interesting that you know that. i've been seeing this cavalcade of rich men, generally, elon musk and others being like can you imagine, this is nuts, someone going to jail for this. like yeah, dude, it actually does happen. i had to break it to you. thank you both. coming up, they wouldn't do it for any other member of their party, so why is nearly every republican of official going to bat for donald trump? that is next. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up, i've got symptom relief. ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. skyrizi is the first il-23 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improve damage of the intestinal lining. and the majority of people experienced long-lasting remission at one year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ♪ now's the time to ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. we're trying to save the planet with nuggets. ♪ because we need the planet. and we also need nuggets. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc? in some ways the most revealing moment amid all the reaction to donald trump's conviction yesterday which flew under the radar was an exchange online between one moderate republican and the trump campaign worker. it started with former maryland republican governor larry hogan, who is now running for senate in that state. he left office very popular in maryland, a very blue state, and his presence in the race as a republican nominee creates a real issue with the democrats. it expands the mat for republicans. democrats not to spend money on that race. obviously a guy like that is going to have to distance himself from trump who is rarely unpopular in maryland. so he sent out a very carefully worded post saying, quote, regardless of the result i urge all americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. and you see how adept this was, when you look at the timestamp.