happen. >> pamela diaz i thank you for coming. it's such a painful story. we thank you for coming and updating us. thank you for joining us on another busy monday night. in the wake of last week's verdict, as alarming as it is it isn't exactly surprising how donald trump and all of his accolades have been spending their time. attacking the system that held him accountable with escalating dangerous rhetoric, targeting everything from d.a. brad to the judge and even the every day, the 12 every day americans who served as jurors. trump and his buddies are even claiming, this is a favorite of theirs, that the system is rigged. but the system , but that could be farther from the truth. a new walter of the cook political report. we'll break down the political implications of all of this for november. but first, i want to start with a little bit of a thought experiment. about this whole rigged argument trump is spewing out there. let's consider for a moment that we live in an alternate universe. my colleague maddow called this earth too, the one that trump is pushing. in response to his 34 felony convictions. trump says president biden is behind this prosecution in order to quote wound him before november's election. but if that were all true and to be absolutely clear, it is not true. things would look quite different. for starters, the justice department does not have anything to do with this case. the case was entirely located within new york where the crime took place. behind district attorney bragg who brought the case does not even work for president biden or the department of justice. the decision was his and his alone. further more, if biden's d.o.j. was in the business of acting like an anti republican racket, they would be doing a pretty terrible job. after all, the doj has instructions to be indicting a lot of democrats these days like for example, democratic senator bob menendez who is currently on trial facing federal corruption charges. or democratic congressman henry claire who was federally indicted on money laundering. or the president's own son, hunter biden who's trial began today. in that case, president trump bent over backward to appear. so he could continue investigating this case after biden took office. last year, the attorney general even promoted wise to special counsel status which gave him more authority. a month after that promotion, wise indicted hunter biden on charges stemming from a form he filled out when purchasing a gun six years ago. now, just step back and imagine if the circumstances were reversed. and an obama appointed jury had been investigating don jr. do you think the trump administration would have kept him and gave him more power? so no. the d.o.j. has not been weaponized against trump or the republicans. and isn't don a partisan witch hunt either. brad could have chosen to bring up the case as soon as he took office, bragg could have chosen to bring up the case as soon as he took office. hefp -- in fact, he took the time to build a strong case of his own and it paid off. if trump would have been acquitted, bragg would have been the first one to accept the conclusion that 12 every day americans came to. a new report in propublic say that some information is fishy. significant financial benefits including large raises from his campaigns, severance packages. but of course to the expresident, equal justice under law means one thing for him and another for everybody else. people that knows a thing or two about the department of justice and our legal system, he served for the southern district of new york for eight years and he joins me now. i want to start with the over all point i was making. you're a federal prosecutor under the last democratic administration. explain how ridiculous these claims of a weaponized d.o. j. and please if i missed anything, please add it as well >> no you were pretty comprehensive. thank you for having me. it's perfectly legal for people to have arguments about and give their opinions about the nature of the evidence, the strength of the evidence. the rulings of the judge. whether or not their appealable issues. but this flatter society conspiracy theorizing that goes on, just stretches every bit of normal good faith person would have. joe biden who's the commander in chief and president of the united states has all this power that he's using to be a puppeteer of someone who doesn't work in the federal system. that he is pulling the strings of alvin bragg to get his to bring the case, causing him to win the case. and a person who has all this power doesn't do anything about his own justice department who today is bringing a case as you pointed out beginning at trial against his own son. we know something about joe biden, and people may have their views about whether they want to vote for him or not, but we know that biden loves his son more than he wants to hurt trump. next time you have a republican on the show you should ask them, isn't it true that joe biden has the power to fire the special counsel. the answer would be yes. isn't it true that biden has the power constitutionally to pardon in advance his son and spare him from this spectacle. he does. he didn't do anything of those things. the idea that someone who is not exercising his authority to protect his son was otherwise some kind of a puppeeter borders on ludicrousness. >> he kept him on, he didn't have to do that. there are other moments that he didn't have to keep him in the job, he has done that. we don't know what will happen in the outcome of this case. bragg doesn't work for joe biden. doesn't work for the department. it doesn't work that way. he doesn't direct them. go ahead. >> even people in the, even people in the justice department work at some remove from orders of the president. you know, i was fired by president trump in part because i refused to speak to him back in march of 2017 because it was inappropriate for a sitting united states attorney who has jurisdiction over his company, his foundation, all sorts of other things to talk to him without you know being communicated by the attorney general of the united states. there's an independence of the justice department which is triple or quadruple or infinite when you're talking about a local prosecutor who was elected by the people of manhattan. not appointed by the president of the united states. >> an important thing for people to know and understand, i mean, if d.o.j. officials came through the white house that kind of moved not only the white house but the treat. i would move the other way to try to avoid them. you have dealt with jury, you've dealt with the totality of the justice suspect. i want to bring the danger of the attack of the jurors. tell me a little bit about those who work in the legal system, how dangerous this is and concerning when you hear these type of attacks not just from trump but from my of the enablers around him. >> yeah. no it's terrible. look, again there's legitimate place for good faith debate and criticism of judicial rulings and arguments made by the defense or the prosecution. look, people on the left i think legitimately i'm one of them. in my podcast and elsewhere, criticized legitimacy of the supreme court. and talk about whether or not sam alito or justice clarence thomas should recuse themselves from certain matters. that's good and respectful debate. you can have that argument, the board of appeals will have the final word of that. but attacking jurors in our system i think it's a bridge too far. as you pointed out, a prosecutor would have said. i said on a number of occasions we win every case we brought. alvin bragg would have taken in stride an acquittal in this case. i think the good and rational thing to have done was you know you can fight in the court of appeal, you can say you disagree with the jurors decision. but we have created a climate. not we, not you and i, but trump and his supporters have created a climate of attacking jurors and putting their safety in jeopardy. it's a new thing in a white collar case that the jurors identities were kept anonymous. that is the landscape that has been created by trump. >> that's an important thing for people to remember. there's a reason we don't know their names. i want to talk about this propolitics piece that just came out. it talks about trump funnels money to people in his cases. including benefits from his campaign. extra bonuses. it raised a lot of red flags to me but i want to know what you made of it. >> yeah, you know, i don't know. certainly, it doesn't ring hollow. it rings true. you know, and a much more i think insidious level. donald trump has known to interfere in cases before. he's known to have sent messages on social media and otherwise to witnesses who are going to be against him either admonishing them not to be against him or suggesting that there was something good in it for them if they were going to be for him. so he's done that sort of thing before. the question of whether or not he's engaged in witness tampering has been raised before. based on the timing of benefits given to folks. it's a very, very difficult thing for a prosecutor to prove that there was jury tampering based on what's happening and reported so far. i take a little bit of a moment to examine them further and see if there's other reporting about it and an investigation that follows. but it's troubling and not surprising. >> troubling, not surprising. more we need to know about it. i mean everything i wanted to ask you about, nearly every single republican official in the country or far too many is taking the opportunity to attack this verdict in the rule of law. yesterday on meet the press, senator cotton of arkansas appeared reluctant to even condemn threats against jurors. so i just want to play that and we'll talk about it on the other side. >> since thursday's verdict there a has been a spike directed to the jurors in particular. including calls to publish their addresses, physical attacks, will you condemn those threats? >> well peter, i don't know what obscure websites that you've gone through. >> no this is from true social. an individual says i hope every juror may god strike them dead. we will on november 5th and they will pay. you can condemn that, won't you. >> i will always say violence has no place in politics. i don't know what obscure account you found on social media. >> it's on true social. >> it wasn't a hard or trick question i think from peter to condemn violence or threats against jurors. i'm just trying to wrap my head around, that's why i'm asking you. what does it tell you that a sitting senator is so hesitant to condemn these type of calls for violence? >> well, you know, i don't know, i can't put myself in the mind of u.s. senator and that particular senator. but if someone has the aspiration to be a vice president or cabinet member or member of the supreme court all of which are not unviable prospects for someone like him and others, you don't want to get on the wrong side of donald trump. and donald trump's rhetoric i think you know is the model here for everyone here that's talking about it. it's very performative. i think it's dangerous when we're talking about separating out criticism, good faith criticism of the judge, the defense or the jury, there have been jury decisions made in this country. including the o.j. simpson case back 30 years ago that people disagree with. and i don't remember people talking about or seeming to accept the idea of violent against those jurors. this is something we haven't seen that much of before and i think it's dangerous and it's improper. >> thank you as always. thank you for joining me this evening. i appreciate you taking the time. david prixter is joining us on what we should be focused on now that donald trump has been found guilty. we're coming back in 30 second. -- 30 seconds. everybody wants super straight, super white teeth. they want that hollywood white smile. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients. when i sat down with my next guest last fall he had what seemed like a pretty reasonable request for his republican colleagues across the aisle. >> i know great republicans out there who haven't spoken up yet but who believe as i do that donald trump is dangerous for this nation. >> do you expect they will speak out? >> i hope they will. i know there are people who are afraid. and that's exactly what donald trump hopes. but there are republicans that need to stand up and call it out and i would like to see that sooner rather than later. >> i mean, if you have a public platform and you think something is dangerous, call it out. that's very reasonable sounding. that's what leaders are supposed to do by the way no matter what your political persuasion is. instead, what we've been seeing is not that kind of courage at all. instead we've seen too many republicans continue to echo donald trump. instead of calling out the rule of law the overwhelming majority are amplifying it. not exactly the profile encourage my next guest had in mind. what is that message to those republicans now and what else should republicans be focusing on for the next five months before the election. thank you so much for taking the time. i was remembering our conversation. when i spoke to a few months ago. you hoped republicans would start calling trump out on his dangerous rhetoric. instead many are now amplifying his attacks on our justice system. especial lip -- especially in the last couple of days. what's your message to them now at this moment? it may not surprise you. >> they should begin by renouncing the violence and the jailing that president trump is calling for. you have heard a lot of his supporters, laura loomer and others, congressman from georgia calling for either the death penalty or jailing of people who don't support donald rump. and it is divisive. what they are doing is now taking sides with donald trump. that is the part that i think is un-american. this idea that we're going to have a country where you can no longer speak out with your views as a democrat, or even as a republican, and i know many are afraid as i said months ago. but the idea that now your going to be threatened with violence. that's a challenge that i think the american public is going to stand up to. and in fact, it's going call to americans who really want a country where you're allowed to stand up and vote as you want, to say as you wish in the political arena. standing against that being for violence. that's un-american. >> absolutely. i do want to play something to this point that marjory taylor green said earlier today and get your reaction on the other side of that. >> we're literally a banana republic. what does it matter. the american people don't give a [bleep ] >> she's so essentially, the concepts of her comments she's basically saying we should shut down the government over a guilty verdict. this is an attack on the system, an attack on a rule of law, i know it's happening here in washington. you're not in washington, but i just felt the need to call it out. >> the american people have a choice to make, it's clear. there's a president in office who's trying to truly make progress. and you know there's a convicted felon running against him who's trying to make bail. and these are choices that americans are going to have in november. i think the campaign from now until november needs to be a reminder of who these two people are. and particularly that donald trump a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist is a serious contender for the presidency i think that's going to be rejected by a majority of voters. >> so one of the points the campaign has made, trump obviously is a convicted felon, will be a convicted felon. he's been convicted of these crimes it's not going to be central to this message. i'm a believer they need to connect to how things are going to impact the american people, i think you are as well. talk to me about how much of the message you think that should be. it is a historic moment in a dark way. what percentage should be about other issues that people are thinking about out there in their homes. >> this is going to be decided in november at the ballot box. i think what's going to drive people to make their decision is what the stands are by the two candidates. let's talk about that. because yeah, because donald trump's name come the words convicted felons and adjudicated rapist. let's talk about voting rights and civil rights, that is what joe biden has been fighting for his entire career and as president of the united states. who's on the other side? this is a guy who literally sent jobs overseas, while he was president. he rejected science and the result of that is that hundreds of thousands more people died than should have in the covid- 19 pandemic. this is a former president who is a racist, he's a masogonist, a homophobe, a zenophobe. i think we need to make that clear from now until november. >> one of the things you speak out about is abortion rights. for the totality of the rights people have been talking about jobs being overturned. thousands of people blame joe biden for jobs being overturned which bends the night. i'm asking you, how does the president and how does the party convince the public the people who think that that that's not true. and not the case. >> it's messaging over and over and over again. just reminding people it's clear what the choices are. donald trump keeps saying not only is he opposed to abortion rights he's also opposed to contraception. he's also opposed to ivf. i mean this is somebody who i think most americans would say is out of touch with modern american society. women should have the right to make decisions for themselves about their own futures and this is about their economic futures. this is about the future of their families. we're not just talking about you know a poor single woman who may want to get an abortion, that is something that happens and we want to make that available, but also about families and spouses who are making decisions about the futures of their family. they may have children now, they may be trying to have more children with ivf. donald trump wants to cut all that off. and you know, we got a hint of this extension of the anti abortion movement in the decision that was written by former, by current justice clarence thomas, when he talked about going after contraception. going after lgbtq rights. going after ivf. so, we knew this was coming. now we have a presidential candidate who used to be president who's proven that he believes in that philosophy. he appointed the three supreme court justices who put jobs in place. and we know what the future of women's rights are going to be as a result of a donald trump second presidency. >> before i let you go governor, i know a lot of democrats out there watching are looking forward to the convention and all the speeches. there are a lot of concerns expressed about potential for protests, potential for violence from protests. i mean hopefully not of course. can you tell me a little bit about the preparations happening in chicago and how concerned you are about that? >> let's remind ourselves that the last convention that was in chicago was in 1996. it was a phenomenal convention. i think i've been to every single convention since i've been able to vote and that 96 convention in chicago. the last one here was the best if you ask me. now, the convention we're about to put on even better. because first of all we're going to show off the values and the diversity of the democratic party. also the tremendous amazing kinds of advancements that have been made because of joe biden and his policies. and let's point out that they were bipartisa