Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Trump Holds News Conference Day After Historic Guilty Verdict; Trump Blames "Biden And His People" For Criminal Conviction; Trump Again Denies Falsifying Records After Being Convicted. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired May 31, 2024 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": -- claims, and by the way, many of his supporters used the same language, claims that this case was quote "all done by Joe Biden." Tell us in fact how the system works with a district attorney in the state of New York, like this one.
DANIEL DALE, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER: Yeah. So, a district attorney is a locally elected prosecutor. So, DA Alvin Bragg was elected by the voters of Manhattan. It is fair to point out that he is a Democrat. But, there was not a shred of evidence that President Biden or his administration had anything to do with this case, Jim. A district attorney does not report to the federal government. The President does not have any authority over him. And there is no evidence of any communication between the President, his aides, and the district attorney or his team.
SCIUTTO: Very helpful. And it's important as we watch that empty podium there. Momentarily, Donald Trump will be in that position. Of course, we'll have an opportunity after he speaks this morning to fact check some of the statements again. Thanks to Daniel Dale. Thanks to Daniel Dale very much there.
Katelyn, as we await the former President and current nominee for President and his comments on this trial, we briefly raised what the Supreme Court is considering now. The Supreme Court is considering how far a President or former President's claim of immunity goes.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: It's a bubble.
SCIUTTO: And that will relate to the January 6, a special counsel's click case. What are the possible outcomes from the Supreme Court? We don't know what they will be. But, what are the possible outcomes to come down?
POLANTZ: Yeah. Donald Trump wants the whole case dismissed, a possibility unlikely, given what we heard at the arguments.
SCIUTTO: Unlikely. I've even heard conservative --
POLANTZ: They could say that.
SCIUTTO: -- legal analysts say, unlikely, the court is going to say, you're immune from everything.
POLANTZ: Right. It's also unlikely to have five votes where the Supreme Court would give no immunity at all. A lot of the questions at those arguments were about where to draw the line --
SCIUTTO: Right.
POLANTZ: -- not just for Donald Trump, but for the future of the presidency, how much immunity should a President get around the actions they take while in office, whether those are private acts, or part of the job. What is very likely here is that the Supreme Court will set up a plan, a test, a direction, and give it to the lower courts. And then, there are two possible things. One, a lot more things would have to happen in court that could then result in additional appeals and further delay the trial, and maybe we get to trial, maybe we don't, depending on the outcome of the election. And then, the other possibility is that it might not be appealable. The next step, depending on how the Supreme Court writes the opinion, what those five or more votes in the majority would want to do.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
POLANTZ: And in that scenario, there is a real possibility that a trial judge, Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C. on the federal court, could get the case back in early July, late June, and say, let's go.
SCIUTTO: Right.
POLANTZ: Here is the calendar. Here is your trial date. We're ready.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. We'll see on that. OK. Again, as we wait for Trump to give a speech on his conviction yesterday afternoon on all 34 felony counts, as sentencing comes up on July 11, you say there'll be an interview of Donald Trump, the convicted felon here. He'll be involved in this interview?
POLANTZ: I'm not exactly sure --
SCIUTTO: OK.
POLANTZ: -- how the state court in New York does it. But, in many courts, there are a lot of digging into people's financial state, their history, their life. Typically, those are secret reports, confidential that the probation office will do. But, the court itself has to tell the judge, this is what the standards are around --
SCIUTTO: Right.
POLANTZ: -- this type of crime, this person. And one thing that works in Donald Trump's favor here is that he has never been convicted of a --
SCIUTTO: Right.
POLANTZ: -- crime before.
SCIUTTO: Which is --
POLANTZ: So, he has no record. And so, it doesn't mean he will see the most of the sentencing.
SCIUTTO: And that's one reason legal analysts and former prosecutors etc. said that judge -- that jail time, while possible, less likely because he is not a previously convicted felon.
POLANTZ: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Katelyn Polantz, please stand by. Rahel Solomon in New York. Rahel, it's quite a day. It'll be interesting, to say the least, what the President's comments are -- the former President's comments regarding his felony conviction.
RAHEL SOLOMON, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": Absolutely. And you can see, for our audience, you see that empty podium. Of course, we will take you there just as soon as we have it, but it'll be interesting to see who else may be there, if anyone, including his wife, Melania. We will take you there just as soon as he takes the podium.
For now, I want to get the legal view from trial attorney and former prosecutor Randy Zelin. Randi, do I have you?
RANDY ZELIN, TRIAL ATTORNEY, & FORMER PROSECUTOR: I do and you do.
SOLOMON: OK. Good to have you. So, walk me through -- listen, you're on the defense team today. What are you doing? What could a possible appeal look like?
ZELIN: Well, an appeal, and you can really bookend it, you can start the appeal from the standpoint of an indictment that did not indicate what this other crime was. Remember, the misdemeanor only relates to the entries of the -- those false entries into the books and records of the Trump Organization. To elevate the charge to a felony, it's got to be in furtherance of or in concealment of another crime. The indictment never said what that was.
[11:05:00]
So, you've got a constitutional challenge right there. The statute may not even be constitutional to the extent that the people don't have to name what are the charges. That's crazy. Then you go all the way to the end. The jury instructions were completely unconstitutional. For the jury to be told that they didn't have to be unanimous on what this other crime was, in other words, the jury could have been, well, four of us think it was in furtherance of a state tax violation. Four of us think it was in furtherance of a federal election law violation. And four of us thought it was in furtherance of a state election law violation. That flies in the face of everything that we stand for in our criminal justice system. Guilt has to be unanimous, beyond a reasonable doubt on every element.
SOLOMON: Fascinating. So, Randy, help me understand, if the judge has let the jury go but has also said that they're free to discuss the case, if we hear from a juror -- actually, Randy, we're looking at live pictures as Trump, obviously at Trump Tower there, approaches the cameras, speaks to the cameras. Randy, standby for just a moment. We want to listen together, and we'll discuss on the other side of this.
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you very much, everybody. This is a case where, if they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone. These are bad people. These are, in many cases, I believe, sick people, when you look at our country, what's happening where millions and millions of people are flowing in from all parts of the world, not just South America, from Africa, from Asia, from the Middle East, and they're coming in from jails and prisons, and they're coming in from mental institutions and insane asylums. They're coming in from all over the world into our country.
And we have a President and a group of fascists that don't want to do anything about it because they could, right now, today, he could stop it. But, he is not. They're destroying our country. Our country is in very bad shape. And they're very much against me saying these things. They want to raise your taxes by four times. They want to stop you from having cars, with their ridiculous mandates that make it impossible for you to get a car, afford a car, and make it very possible for China to build all of our cars. It's a very serious problem that we have.
We just went through one of many experiences where we had conflicted judge, highly conflicted. There has never been a more conflicted judge. Now, I'm under a gag order, which nobody has ever been under, no presidential candidate has ever been under a gag order before. I'm under a gag order, nasty gag order, where I've had to pay thousands of dollars in penalties and fines, and was threatened with jail. Think of it. I'm the leading candidate. I'm leading Biden by a lot. And I'm leading the Republicans to the point where that's over. So, I'm the leading person for President, then I'm under a gag order by a man that can't put two sentences together, given by a court and they are in total conjunction with the White House and the DoJ, just so you understand.
This is all done by Biden and his people, and maybe his people more importantly. I don't know if Biden knows too much about it because I don't know if he knows about anything. But, he is nevertheless the President. So, we have to use his name. And this is done by Washington. And nobody has ever seen anything like it. So, we have a judge who is highly conflicted. You know what the confliction is? Nobody -- nobody wants to write about it. And I'm not allowed to talk about it. If I do, he said, I get put in jail. So, we'll play that game a little bit longer. We won't talk about it. But, you're allowed to talk about it. I hope you do, because there has never been anybody so conflicted as this.
As far as the trial itself, it was very unfair. We weren't allowed to use our election expert under any circumstances. You saw what happened to some of the witnesses that were on our side. They were literally crucified by this man who looks like an angel, but he is really a devil. He looks so nice and soft. People say, oh, he seems like such a nice man. No, unless you saw him in action. And you saw that with a certain witness that went through hell. And when we wanted to do things, he wouldn't let him -- he would let us do those things. But, when the government wanted something, they got everything. They got everything they wanted.
It's a rigged -- it was a rigged trial. We wanted a venue change, where we could have a fair trial. We didn't get it. We wanted a judge change. We wanted a judge who wasn't conflicted. And obviously, he didn't do that.
[11:10:00]
There is nobody who has ever seen anything like it. We had a DA who is a failed DA. Crime is rampant in New York, violent crime. That's what he is really supposed to be looking at. Crime is rampant in New York. Yesterday in McDonald's, you had a man hitting him up with machetes, a machete, whoever can imagine even a machete being wielded in a store, in a place where they're eating and he is going rampant. And Bragg is down watching a trial on what they call crimes, crimes. They're falsifying business records. That sounds so bad. To me, it sounds very bad. You know, it's only a misdemeanor. But, to me, it sounds so bad.
When they say falsifying business, that's a bad thing for me. I've never had that before. I'm falsified. You know what falsifying business records is? In the first degree, they say falsifying business records. Sounds so good, right? It means that legal expense, I paid a lawyer, totally legal. I paid a lawyer, a legal expense. And a bookkeeper, without any knowledge from me, correctly marked it down in the books, a very professional woman, highly respected. She testified. Marked it down to the books as a legal expense. So, a legal expense, I paid a lawyer, it's a legal expense in the books. It's not sheetrock construction or any other thing. It's a legal expense. Think of that.
This is what the falsification of business records were. And I said, what else are you going to call it? What else are you going to call it? Now, I would have testified. I wanted to testify. The theory is, you never testify, because as soon as you testify for anybody, if it were George Washington, don't testify, because they'll get you in something that you said slightly wrong, and then they sue you for perjury. But, I didn't care about that. I wanted to. But, the judge allowed them to go into everything that I was ever involved in, not this case, everything that I was ever involved in, which is a first.
In other words, you could go into every single thing that I ever did. Was he a bad boy here? Was the bad boy there? And my lawyer said, what do you need to go through? All you wanted to do his testify simply on this case, because I would have loved to have testified. To this day, I would have liked to have testified. But, you would have been -- you would have said something out of whack. Like, it was a beautiful sunny day, and it was actually raining out. And I very much appreciate the big crowd of people outside. That's incredible what's happening. The level of support has been incredible.
So, the whole thing is, legal expense was marked down as legal expense. Think of it. This is my -- this is the crime that I committed that I'm supposed to go to jail for 187 years for, when you have violent crime all over this city at levels that nobody has ever seen before, where you have businesses leaving, and businesses are leaving because of this, because heads of businesses say, man, we don't want to get involved with that. I could go through the books of any business person in the city and I could find things that, in theory, I guess, let's indict him. Let's destroy his life. But, I'm out there, and I don't mind being out there because I'm doing something for this country, and I'm doing something for our Constitution. It's very important, far beyond me.
And this can't be allowed to happen to other presidents. It should never be allowed to happen in the future. But, this is far beyond me. This is bigger than Trump. This is bigger than me. This is bigger than my presidency. And the people understand it, because I just see a poll just came out of the Daily Mail. That was the first one. It came out. It was done. Last night, right after the verdict, where I'm up six points, six points from what we already were. We were leading fairly substantially. We're up six points in the Daily Mail poll. Now, maybe other polls come out and says something differently. But, a lot of people have predicted it because the public understands and they understand what's going on.
This is a scam. This is a rigged trial. It shouldn't have been in that venue. We shouldn't have had that judge. He should have allowed us to have an election expert. We had the best expert, most respected expert, head of the Federal Elections Commission. He was all set to testify. He was waiting for two days. And when it was his turn, Bragg's people protested. And the judge knocked him out, said you can't testify. He actually said you can't testify for anything having to do with the trial. You can say what the federal elections is. Well, that doesn't help. Everybody knows that. But, you can't testify.
[11:15:00]
So, essentially, he wasn't able to testify. Other people weren't able to testify. But, with these people, they were able to use people, salacious, by the way, and nothing ever happened. There was no anything. Nothing ever happened and they know it. But, they were salacious as they could be and it had nothing to do with the case. But, it had to do with politics. And do you notice the timing? The timing was perfect. This case was dead. It was dropped by every agency, every governmental board. It was dropped by the highly respected Southern District. They said, no, there is no case here. It was dropped by federal election. And that's what it's about. This is about a federal election, not a state election. You're not even allowed to look at it.
They took the state and the city and they went into a federal election. They're not allowed. The people from federal election, Southern District, and Washington dropped the case. Everybody dropped the case. There wasn't no case. Cy Vance dropped the case. And when Bragg came in, he said, this is the most ridiculous case I've ever seen. And who would have a certain person, again, gag order? Who would have a certain person like this ever testify? He said, this is essentially one of the worst people I've ever seen ever to testify. He said, the craziest case I've ever seen. This is Bragg.
They want to announce I was running for President. Long time later, they decided to revive this case, and they got a judge, Judge Merchan, who was responsible for another case that was also brought. It destroyed the life of a very good man, by the way, destroyed the life of a very good man who went to prison once, and then they just put him in prison again because they said he lied. He didn't lie. I looked at the statements he made. In fact, he didn't remember something and they put him in jail. Again, they've destroyed him. With me for many years. He was an honorable person. He was an honest man. And if you look at what he did, supposedly, it never happened.
There has never been anything like this, over the education of his grandchildren, over -- he didn't report that he had a car, or two cars on his income. I don't know. I wonder how many people here have cars. I wonder how many people said, oh, gee, I have a car that's worth X dollars. How do you even figure it? And I guess you do have to report it. But, I would say probably almost nobody does. Nobody even thinks about it. They put this man. They destroyed this man. But, they put him in jail again because they didn't want him to testify. They didn't want him to testify. That's why he went to jail. They put him in jail twice. He is 77-years-old. Now, normally, I'd say that's an old guy. But, I don't feel 77.
Nobody ever says that about me. I'd like him to say, gee, we have to have a little sorrow for this man because they don't -- they just don't say that about me. But, maybe I'm better off that way. I think I'm probably better off that way. But, they put him in jail twice. And you have to see why they put him in jail. And he was threatened by the judge. This man was told, you're going to get 15 years in jail if you don't give up Trump, and he was told that. You're going to get 15 years in jail. And he made a plea deal because he spent the rest of his life, and he was told that viciously. We're living in a fascist state. He was told that viciously. So, you can go to jail for four months, five months, or you can get 15 years in jail. So, do a please. Almost who wouldn't do that plea? Everyone does those pleas. It's a horrible thing.
There is a whole group of lawyers that fight that. It's so unfair. It's so unfair. But, they destroyed his life. So many other things. You look at -- Southern District didn't want to bring the case. Nobody wanted to bring the case. And then, you know, who didn't want to bring the case? Most of all, is Bragg. Bragg didn't want to bring it, but then he brought it. And they tried to make it a different case. They didn't say legal expense equal legal expense. Again, if I wrote down and paid a lawyer -- and by the way, this was a highly qualified lawyer. Now, I'm not allowed to use his name because of the gag order. But, you know, he is a sleazebag. Everybody knows that. It took me a while to find out.
But, he was effective. He did his work. But, he wasn't a fixer. He was a lawyer. You know, they like to use the word fixer. He wasn't a fixer. He was a lawyer. At the time, he was a fully accredited lawyer.
[11:20:00]
Now, he got into trouble not because of me. He got into trouble because he made outside deals and he had something to do with taxi cabs and medallions that he borrowed money. And that's why he went, and then he pled to three election violations. And as soon as I saw that, I said, I wonder why he did that. He pled. He took a deal. Now, he took a deal because he wanted to get off. In other words, I'll take a plea deal and I want to get off. And he wanted to make a deal with the Southern District. And they wrote, the worst people I think I've ever seen on any human being other than the report that was written on James Comey, by the Inspector General, a very great inspector general, actually, wrote a report that was so bad. This one was possibly worse.
The Southern District, the judge didn't let us use it. He said, it is hearsay. I said, it's not hearsay. Wouldn't let us use it. This is about the man. But, he got in trouble for a very simple reason because he was involved with borrowing a lot of money and he did something with the banks. I don't know if he defrauded the banks, but something happened. You guys know what it is. And then, in addition to that, he gave up on three things where he wasn't guilty. In fact, they were going to testify at that the head of the FEC, the Brad Smith, the election expert, number one rated in the country, he was going to testify. He took the plea on three things. He just added them in because that gave him more bargaining power with respect to me.
But, the three things that he pled on having to do with the election and having to do essentially a little bit with me, they weren't crimes. They weren't crimes, nor is paying money under an NDA. So, we have an NDA (non-disclosure agreement). It's a big deal on non- disclosure agreement. Totally honorable. Totally good. Totally accepted. Everybody has them. Every company has non-disclosure agreements. But, the press called it slush fund and all sorts of other things. Hush money. Hush money. It's not hush money. It's called the non-disclosure agreement. And most of the people in this room have a non-disclosure agreement with that company.
It's a disgrace. So, it's not hush money. It's a non-disclosure agreement. Totally legal. Totally common. Everyone has it. And what happened is he signed a non-disclosure agreement with this person, I guess other people, but it's totally honest. You're allowed to make the payment. You don't have to make it -- you can make it any way you want. It's a non-disclosure agreement. And he signed that. And there was nothing wrong with signing it. And this should have been a non- case. And everybody said it was a non-case, including Bragg, Bragg said until I ran for office.
And then they saw the polls. I was leading the Republicans. I was leading the Democrats. I was leading everybody. And all of a sudden, they brought it back. It's a very sad thing that's happening in our country, and it's a thing that I'm honored in a way. I'm honored. It's not that it's pleasant. It's very bad for family. It's very bad for friends and businesses. But, I'm honored to be involved in it because somebody has to do it, and I might as well keep going and be the one. But, I'm very honored to be involved because we're fighting for our Constitution.
The money that was paid, was paid legally. There was nothing illegal. In fact, the lawyer in creating the NDA -- because at that time, he was a fully accredited lawyer. He wasn't a fixer. I never thought of him as a fixer. The media called him a fixer, or the prosecutors called him a fixer. He was a lawyer. And he was fairly good. Later on, I didn't like what he did. I didn't like. For instance, I didn't like that, when I became President, he went around and made deals with companies. When I heard that, he was gone. He was gone. And he had payments coming to him. And a lot of this involved things that are very simple. There was nothing wrong. These were standard -- this was standard stuff, all standard stuff, everything involved were standard. There was no crime here.
In fact, I just watched a couple of the reports. You watched Jonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy, Greg Jarrett, you look at all of these people, Mark Levin, all very talented people, great people, many more, many more. And they don't know me, essentially. They don't know me, the legal scholars and experts.
[11:25:00]
But, I look at them. I watched Turley this morning saying there is no crime here. Everybody says there is no crime here, except for this DA that's --
SCIUTTO: We've been listening to the former President reacting to his conviction yesterday afternoon on all 34 felony counts by a jury in New York. Just a brief recap of some of the language he used in his response here as well as some of the false or certainly hard to prove statements that he has repeated. He accused those behind this conviction of being bad people, sick people, fascists. He called the judge conflicted. He called Michael Cohen, a witness for the prosecution, a sleazebag, again, the former President's words.
He also falsely accused President Biden of being behind this prosecution, given it was not a federal prosecution. The President has no involvement. It was brought by the Manhattan DA. He also accused Biden again without basis or proof that he can't put two sentences together. It's a consistent framing that Trump uses against his opponent for the presidency in November. He also seem to be attempting to adjudicate the case again, claiming innocence.
And just at the end there, you heard him cite a number of conservative lawyers and legal analysts, a handful of them who have said that they don't believe this conviction was justified, and then goes on to claim that everyone says this conviction was unjustified, which, of course, Rahel, as we know, is not true, because you and I have spoke to (inaudible), including conservative jurists who find this at least substantive. Whether they agree with the ruling, is another question there. But again, many of these are frequent comments, charges and falsehoods from the former President. We're going to fact check them in a moment.
What stood out to you, Rahel, as you were listening to the former President?
SOLOMON: Yeah. I mean, Jim, I think you laid it out really well there, that a lot of what we heard is what we often hear from the former President, who was wanting to once again be President again. I mean, Jim, he said, I'm doing this for this country. I'm doing this --
SCIUTTO: Yeah. SOLOMON: -- for the Constitution. This is far beyond me. This is bigger than Trump. This is bigger than my presidency, and the people understand it, which continues to be a message that Trump has tried to frame his legal troubles, both the one right now in New York, but also the other three that he is currently --
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SOLOMON: -- entangled with, that he is being persecuted for the people --
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SOLOMON: -- a rallying cry, if you might, Jim, to his base that appears to be --
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SOLOMON: -- hearing it. We do have a show of force. We have a team of reporters, correspondents, legal analysts, all covering this for you, as we see our Brynn Gingras outside of the courthouse there. Katelyn Polantz live with us there.
Brynn, let me start with you. There is obviously a gag order that is still in place, the former President alluding to it quite often there. Just remind us of what exactly it covers and your takeaways from what we just heard there.
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So, that gag order, of course, which he says and he did violate it several times and has had to pay fines and limits who he can talk about when it was in regards to this case. He could not speak ill about the witnesses in this case, including Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and he couldn't go against any of the prosecutors or their family members of the judge. He could speak about the judge. He could speak about Bragg, which we heard him talk about so many times during the trial, and then right there.
What I really took out of that from listening to him, of course, we have the usual sort of bullet points that he hits many times when he speaks, when he is at a rally and also just when he would speak right outside this courtroom, but I almost felt like he was saying some things that he wish he could have said if he testified. It's very clear that he wanted to take the stand in this trial. His defense attorney says he wanted to and he said it right there.
But, as you can see, the way the former President talks, he goes off on tangents. He says things that are not true. When he took the stand in the civil fraud trial, that was last year, the court kind of went into a little bit of chaos of what he was saying, and that was not in front of a jury. That was just in front of the judge. And that was certainly something that was at risk. His defense attorneys knew that was something at risk. But, he is making it out to be that he couldn't really take the stand because he would be asked about things that he didn't think he should be getting into or was it wise to get into in his past. So, that was one of the things I certainly just took about what he was
saying there. And I know you guys are going to go through some fact checkers. But certainly, there were many talking points, we've heard before, that he was making there that are just simply not true when it came to these specific charges that he is now convicted of.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Brynn, thank you.
SCIUTTO: Well, to the point about his claim that he wanted to testify, the difference between testifying in a courtroom and saying what you want to say at the podium there, is that if you lie in the courtroom, that's illegal.
[11:30:00]
That's perjury. He could say whatever he wants, including many of the falsehoods he shared here. That is the difference between those two scenarios.
GINGRAS: And there is not questions. Right, Jim?
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
GINGRAS: Yeah.
SCIUTTO: The other point I would make is this, Rahel, is that --
GINGRAS: Yeah. They're -- they're -- yeah.
SCIUTTO: -- he claims the system is rigged, right, and this trial is rigged. A consistency, Katelyn Polantz, with Donald Trump is a court is rigged if it decides against him. The DoJ was rigged for indicting him for January 6 and the documents. It was not rigged when it indicted Hunter Biden or Senator Bob Menendez. The 2020 election was rigged because he lost. 2016 was fine except the popular vote which he lost. The Supreme Court did the right thing by keeping Alito and Thomas on the January 6 immunity case, but was wrong not to take up his false claims about the 2020 election. So, we should be clear when he says rigged, that rigged fits the moment for him.
POLANTZ: It does. The first words out of Donald Trump's from the podium where he is speaking here were, he says, if they can do this to me --
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
POLANTZ: -- they can do this to anyone. That's true. They can --
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
POLANTZ: -- if you are charged with a crime. It goes through the system, the rigors of the system. The judge looks at it. A grand jury looks at it. And then, ultimately, you're tried in court, yes --
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
POLANTZ: -- if you're convicted of a crime by a jury.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
POLANTZ: This is something that can happen to people, and people are brought to justice all the time. One thing I want to note in the big picture of the legal situation we're in is that there is so much in the political sphere right now, catharsis on one side, Trump using this as a political moment where he is talking about his policies, running for President. But, this court case is not over. And everything that he is doing, he is still someone that is being overseen by the court, by the judge. And one of the major things that the judge will consider at sentencing is acceptance of responsibility. There are people whom prosecutors --
SCIUTTO: Great point.
POLANTZ: -- will bring into court at sentencing and say, this person deserves jail time. And I have seen judges be convinced in that moment in court that actually the defendant is so remorseful of their crimes that they are spared from any level of severity for a sentence. The judges truly feel that they want to rehabilitate people who want to be --
SCIUTTO: Right.
POLANTZ: -- rehabilitated, accept responsibility. Donald Trump is not accepting responsibility. He is not saying he is sorry.
SCIUTTO: In fact, he is attacking the system and he is attacking participants in the system as well.
POLANTZ: That's right. And if he does anything that violates or even gets close to the gag order, that is something that the judge could also factor into sentencing.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. No question.
Rahel, I think, we should acknowledges, as the President continues to speak there, that this is quite a moment for this country, the first time a former President convicted of a felony and a current candidate for President. But also, we should acknowledge that there is a large portion of the country that does see this as fundamentally unfair. And in the deeply divided political environment we already inhabit, this is going to be interpreted in a deeply divided way.
SOLOMON: Yeah. It's an interesting point, Jim, because you can almost hear the sound bites in his speech that you know will start to make the waves. You can already sort of see how it will play out on social media, certainly, according to his base. What's interesting is that it was largely a political speech, although there were points when it felt like you might be getting a sense into what his defense is planning in terms of the appeal process, how they may try to challenge this conviction.
For that, let me actually bring back in trial attorney and former prosecutor Randy Zelin. Randy, you are with me just before I tossed to the former President. I want to ask, one, what you heard in those comments. There were certain themes, certain things he started to say that made me think, is this where they're going? He said, this was about a federal election, not a state election. Does that sound like that could be grounds for an appeal, and what else did you hear?
ZELIN: I heard a very just a broken, damaged, unbelievably, just someone who really does not understand what just happened. It truly is. Did you get the number of the truck that just ran you over? And I think a lot of people feel that way. And it has nothing to do with politics. There is a sense and I have it as a trial attorney and I have that sense when I walk the streets. Something does not feel right with this verdict, whether you believe something happened and surely something did happen, but whether you believe it was proven and unfairly.
[11:35:00]
Those jury instructions were unfair, never, and I hate to sound like Mr. Trump, but never in the 36 years that I've been doing this have I ever heard of a jury being told you don't all have to agree unanimously on an element of the case. Four of you can say it's a state election law violations. Four of you can say it is federal election law violations. Four of you can say it is state tax law violations. And that's OK. You can still convict. That flies in the face of everything that we have been taught and everything that the Constitution stands for, which is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to every single element with unanimity, unanimity.
SOLOMON: Jim.
SCIUTTO: And he took a shot, one could say, against Michael Cohen, key witness for the prosecution, called him a sleazebag. Do you see any violation, potential violations of his gag order, which we should note is still in place? Randy, I wonder if you heard me there. It's Jim Sciutto. Curious if you heard in any of the President's comments a potential violation of his gag order.
ZELIN: Unfortunately, I did, and that -- that's not going to deter the former President. The former President, just the way he operates, he is daring this judge to throw him in jail, almost as if it is a badge of honor. And if Judge Merchan wasn't conflicted before, he certainly conflicted now, because what does he do with this man? As Rahel said earlier, Mr. Trump checks off every box not to go to jail. But, what do you do with someone who constantly just kicks sand in your face, completely looks at you as the ruler of law and says, go screw yourself?
SOLOMON: Randy, let me ask, I think the big question now as we look ahead to July 11 sentencing is, one, if you can explain logistically, if an appeal is filed, does that July 11 date hold, and two, if it does, what types of things, beyond what Katelyn was just talking about there, does the person show remorse? What types of things does the judge weigh when deciding what the appropriate punishment is? Randy, do I have you?
SCIUTTO: May have lost them there. SOLOMON: OK. Well, we'll try to get Randy back up. But, that is the
question, right, Jim? And I think what's interesting, hard to miss, July 11 comes a week after the first CNN debate, the first debate --
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SOLOMON: -- between the current President and the former President, and just days before the Republican National Convention. We're going to try to get Randy back up.
But, in the meantime, let's talk about the politics of the moment. It is a historic moment, no doubt, but it is also an election year. And this verdict may not cause any major shifts at the ballot box this November. The Marist Poll released this week, 67 percent of registered voters said that it wouldn't make a difference if Trump is found guilty. 17 percent said that they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he were convicted, and 15 percent said that they would actually be more likely to vote for the former President with his conviction, and with this conviction.
Now, American voters are now faced with the decision that they've never had to make before, choosing whether to vote for a convicted felon as their next President. Could a guilty verdict impact Trump's campaign?
Joining me now to talk all about it, including with Jim as well, is CNN Political Commentator and Attorney, Bakari Sellers, and former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and CNN Senior Political Commentator, Scott Jennings. Do I have you both, Scott and Bakari?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, & FORMER SPECIAL ASST. TO PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Hey, good to see you.
SOLOMON: Hey, good to have you. Scott, let me start with you. You said this morning on our air that you think that this conviction could essentially fire up the base, could galvanize his base. You are Republican. How do you think the party is feeling this morning?
JENNINGS: Well, I think the party is unified and being outraged by it. But, I also think two things could be true. Your base could be energized and unified. And this is a very close election that's going to be decided on the margins. And are there a few thousand people in Georgia or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Michigan who might say I don't want to vote for a convicted felon? Absolutely. I mean, the two voter group cohorts that I'm watching over the next few weeks in a polling would be senior citizens. Biden has some strength with seniors, especially in the Upper Midwest, and also sort of disengaged voters who don't get a lot of news. Maybe they just see fleeting headlines from time to time.
To me, those are the two groups most likely to probably react negatively to this. And if you see any bump for Biden, it's probably going to come from those. If you don't see a bump, if you don't see anything change here, then obviously it puts a lot more pressure on Biden, as they head towards the debate at the end of June. He has been stuck at 38 percent for a long time. He has been stuck behind Trump for a long time. And so, they're hoping the month of June brings better weather than they've had so far.
[11:40:00]
SCIUTTO: And I understand that point of view and I understand. I've spoken to many who don't see this at least as the most serious case or indictments facing Trump. But, you say outrage. When you go to the fundamentals, and I've spoken to Republicans as well about this, including Republican lawmakers who say that, at the end of the day, this is a case about a porn star and paying money to keep that story quiet. And while the law behind the conviction might not be clear to many Americans, at least the story, the narrative of that is one that is not positive for the President. And after all, you have a jury of his peers in New York who looked at the evidence, considered it and convicted him.
Is that entirely a fair view? Because you understand, and you and I've talked about this before, that Trump attacks the system whenever it doesn't go in his favor. The 2020 election he lost, it must have been rigged, right? The DoJ is right to indict Hunter Biden, but it's rigged to indict me. You know that his argument is anything that doesn't go his way must be rigged or somehow unfair. Do you see on the other side the danger of just assuming that this was a rigged process that shows bias?
JENNINGS: I think a couple of things. Number one, I heard our CNN's colleague Fareed Zakaria say that he doubted that any defendant not named Donald Trump would have ever been indicted in the way Alvin Bragg did this. I think that view is shared by many Republicans. And number two, actually, I think one of the biggest Trump skeptics in Washington, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, kind of summed up people's feelings in her statement last night by saying that she didn't believe that this was a pursuit of justice under the law. It was just a pursuit of a guy named Donald Trump.
And I think for Republicans who are skeptical of how this went down, one of the big issues they have is, would anyone other than Trump had been taken down this road, and especially when there was really no underlying crime that he has ever been indicted for or convicted of? The campaign finance theory at the heart of this, the Department of Justice passed on it. The Federal Election Commission passed on it. He has never been indicted or convicted of breaking campaign finance laws. And so, a lot of Republicans are wondering, how could you cover up a legal violation that you've never been convicted of, in the first place?
SOLOMON: Bakari, let me bring you into this, and just sort of piggybacking off of what Scott said there, Joe Biden understands the dynamics of how this is being viewed. Joe Biden obviously understands that there is a lens in which people are viewing this, where some may feel like it is politicized. So, is he doing the right thing? Is the campaign doing the right thing by sort of just sort of stepping back? I mean, if you were on his campaign, what would you be doing the day after this conviction?
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, & FORMER DEMOCRATIC SOUTH CAROLINA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: No, definitely. You let this issue breathe. I mean, there is nothing else you can add to it. The fact is, and I think Jim laid out those facts, you have an individual who had cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star and attempted to cover it up. Now, people may say that that should be a misdemeanor, not charged as a felony. But, many individuals know what those facts are. They may not understand the underlying election law violations or state law violations as they may have occurred. But, they know those very tangible facts and reality.
And so, I think letting this breathe sometimes, down south, we always say you got to leave well enough alone. Sometimes it's OK to leave well enough alone, and there is nothing else you need to do to help the situation out. They need to focus on the fundamentals. And Scott and I agree on this one point. Joe Biden is actually doing extremely well with senior citizens. He is doing extremely well for Democrat with college-educated whites. I expect him to get a small bump, nothing that is going to be monumental, nothing that's going to be on the teens, but it's going to be a small bump, and this election is going to be one on the edges. And so, I think that a lot of college- educated white women in particular, enough college-educated white women in particular will be taken aback by this that either they won't vote or they'll vote for Joe Biden.
SOLOMON: Bakari, let me stick with you for just one more moment. You once told me that Joe Biden's challenger is not Donald Trump. His challenger is actually the couch, just sort of trying to galvanize people to actually come out and vote. Do you think this conviction one way or another for Trump's base or for those who don't want Trump back in the White House, is this a galvanizing issue?
SELLERS: Well, it is. I mean, look, it's the galvanizing issues for Trump's base, but they were going to come out anyway. I mean, Trump's base is probably the most loyal base we've seen in American politics. They don't sway. As for Joe Biden. I'm not sure this does much for his GOTV efforts or his "get-out-the-vote" efforts. I don't know many people who are going to say now I'm going to, particularly in the base, saying now I'm going -- I'm really energized to go vote for Joe Biden because Donald Trump got convicted.
I mean, many people knew he was going to get convicted and we expect three more convictions for the litany of crimes he is facing as he goes down the road, I mean, Jack Smith with two cases and Fani Willis with another in Georgia, whenever that case occurs.
[11:45:00]
There are certain things the Biden campaign has to do internally, by continuing to activate black voters, by continuing to do the micro targeting they're doing in South Florida with the different groups of Hispanic voters. Those things are essential and those things are in a vacuum and exclusive from whatever happens to Donald Trump in the legal system.
SCIUTTO: Scott, I was thinking, as I listened to your answer there, there is no question, Rahel and I spoke about this earlier, this is a divisive decision at a divisive time. Right? And we have to brace ourselves to some degree for the reaction. I just -- I'm just curious, because you're someone who like Mitch McConnell, who you worked with for a long time, acknowledged the seriousness of January 6 and Trump's role in it, right, to your credit.
I just wonder, do you believe that case should be adjudicated before the election, that voters should have that information before them? And again, that's out of all of our hands, right? The Supreme Court has to decide the immunity question. And we'll see what steps follow and over what period of time. But, do you believe that question should be -- should go to trial, so folks can see and hear the evidence, and you can get an answer as to whether he is guilty or not guilty on that?
JENNINGS: Yeah. I've long believed that of everything going on the things that should be adjudicated before the election so that voters know what they're dealing with are the things that directly have to do with his time in office. So, that would be January 6. That would be the documents case. These things, to me, need to be dealt with, and it looks like they're not going to be dealt with. That's what makes this case and verdict yesterday so silly, is that we're dealing with an alleged sexual encounter that happened in 2006, 18 years ago. We're dealing with a payment that happened in 2016, eight years ago, and at the same time, we have these front burner issues, which you just referenced, Jim, that are not going to be dealt with. They're not going to be adjudicated.
And so, I think voters deserve a chance. I think the prosecutors and the legal system here have just failed the American people. And by the way, I think it goes both ways. I think Donald Trump deserves a chance to try to clear his name. I mean, being indicted for the documents, being indicted for what happened on January 6, I mean, these are serious allegations. He is never going to get the chance to get not guilty, or to clear his name on it either. I think it's a real disservice. I believe that for months now and I think it's true today.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. It's a good -- it's good argument you want -- theoretically, you'd want that question decided in court, right, so folks can see the evidence and decide either way. I believe Daniel Dale, our senior reporter, is with us here as well. And Daniel, it's always good to have you, because you look at what Trump or anyone else says, and you say, here is what he or she said. Here are the facts. As you listened to Trump there in Trump Tower, give us a list of some of his statements and what's actually true and what's not true.
DALE: It's a long list, Jim, and I only heard part of the speech because I was on fact checking and midway through. But, he repeated this familiar claim that all this, the case was all done by Joe Biden, he said, in total conjunction with the White House and DoJ, the Department of Justice, again, not a shred of evidence that that is true. This case was brought and perpetuated by a locally elected, yes, democratic prosecutor. No evidence of communications with President Biden or the White House. He repeated this claim that he was not allowed under any circumstances by the judge to call an expert in election law to testify. He said the judge knocked him out. That is not true.
It is true the judge limited the scope of the possible testimony of this expert, former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith, but did not say the gentleman could not testify at all. It was Trump's defense that decided not to call the expert after the judge limited the testimony. And former President Trump also repeated this familiar claim that, oh, you know, while prosecutors in Manhattan were focusing on his non- violence supposed offenses, crime is rampant in New York. Now, he said crime in New York is at levels nobody has ever seen before. That is not remotely true.
And I'll give you one example. There were 391 murders in New York City last year. Well, in 1990, there were 2,262, and other forms of crime have also plummeted since the highs of the early 1990s in New York. So, nowhere close to unprecedented levels. And I'll give you one more. I could continue but I'll give you one more. He said Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer and a key prosecution witness, got in his own legal trouble for things that Trump said had nothing to do with me. It was Cohen's taxi business and so on.
Well, that is misleading at best, Jim, because while Cohen did get in trouble and indeed go to prison for offenses related to lies about income tax, about his taxi medallion business, he was also sentenced to prison for crimes directly related to Trump, a campaign finance violation directly related to the same hush money scheme Trump has got in trouble for, and for lying to Congress related to negotiations about a Trump Tower project, never came to fruition in Russia.
[11:50:00]
So, directly related to Donald Trump.
SCIUTTO: In fact, if I remember right, so, he was an unindicted co- conspirator in the federal case, Trump was, to which Michael Cohen pleaded guilty. Is that right?
DALE: Yeah. He was individual -- known as individual one --
SCIUTTO: Right.
DALE: -- famously in this case. So, yes, directly related to Trump himself.
SCIUTTO: Sorry, Rahel.
SOLOMON: No, no, no, of course. Daniel, let me also ask, I mean, because you heard themes of Trump sort of pitching really important issues at the ballot box. For example, you just talked about crime. What about immigration? We heard the President there say, when you look at our country, millions of people are coming in from all around the world. They're being led in from mental institutions. This is an area I know you have looked into before. Tell us what is true here.
DALE: Yeah. He made two claims that I've looked into. So, he claimed, people are flooding in from mental institutions. I've repeatedly asked the Trump campaign, can you provide any substantiation for that claim? They have simply not been able to. It seems to have been conjured up by the former President. He also claimed that -- he said the Congo, he didn't specify is it the Republic of Congo or the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, is releasing people from its jails. It has led people out of jail to come to the U.S. Well, there is no evidence of that either. I've spoken to both governments who have said that's complete nonsense. I went back to Trump's campaign. Can you substantiate it? Again, they were not able to.
SOLOMON: Daniel Dale, great to have you, certainly on a day like today. Thank you. And our thanks, of course, to Scott Jennings and Bakari Sellers as well. Jim,
SCIUTTO: We do have, before we go, our Stephen Collinson here, who covers the world for CNN in many respects. And I wonder, as you look to reaction to this around the world, and I'm not asking you to speak for all eight billion people, but what kind of reactions have you seen coming in?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: It's very interesting. U.S. allies and Europe don't want to touch this with a bargepole. For example, Rishi Sunak, the British Prime Minister, was asked about it today. He doesn't want to get into American domestic politics, especially because Trump may end up being President again, although Rishi Sunak has his own political problems and may not be there that long.
Interestingly, in Italy, one of the far right leaders there basically stood up in solidarity to Trump. You'd expect that ideologically. And he raised the comparison with Silvio Berlusconi, the former Prime Minister, who people on the far right think was persecuted through the courts in Italy. Berlusconi, in many ways, was almost like Trump, before Trump, flamboyant lawyer -- leader, a media magnate known for lying. And then you go to somewhere like China, very controlled media environment. Today, the top trending topic on Weibo, the Chinese Twitter, was Trump and all the commentary basically saying that this is an example of how the U.S. political system is corrupt. How the United States is falling apart? That is the message that the Chinese government wants to tell its people, always tells its people.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
COLLINSON: So, it's significant that that's what they allowed to come on to the social media.
SCIUTTO: Well, the issue with China, right, is that whatever the government's position is on something like this, China would never prosecute its own leaders --
COLLINSON: Right.
SCIUTTO: -- for wrongdoing.
COLLINSON: Exactly.
SCIUTTO: And it's --
COLLINSON: And the Constitution that Trump is attacking isn't an impediment to the leaders he admires, like Vladimir Putin in Russia, to some extent Xi in China. And while he is attacking the Constitution, he is going to avail himself of every single avenue for appeal, which he is allowed, and who knows, he could end up being exonerated on appeal. That's a very interesting comparison.
SCIUTTO: The legal system will run its course. Stephen Collinson, thanks. Thanks so much. It's fascinating, Rahel, always to hear how the world is digesting such major news.
SOLOMON: Absolutely. U.S. politics is always followed closely around the world, especially these days.
Let me bring back in our legal guest, trial attorney and former prosecutor Randy Zelin. Randy, if I'm not mistaken, one of the last things you were telling us is just your concerns about essentially what you said were really problematic jury instructions. So, considering that, the jury is presumably now allowed to speak. They have done their service. They have done their job. They are now allowed to speak. What would you want to know? What would you be listening for, and any comments we hear from the jury?
ZELIN: The first thing I would want to know is, from as many as I could, whether there was unanimity on the other crime, whether all 12 believed that it was in furtherance of either a state tax law violation or a state election law violation or a federal law -- federal election law violation, because if I see anything that looks like a lack of unanimity, then that is going to be, in my humble opinion, a slam dunk basis for an appeal.
[11:55:00]
I would also want to know whether or not any juror was curious in terms of, well, gee, it would have been nice if they would have called someone from the Federal Election Committee to talk about whether or not there was a violation. And gee, wow, Stormy Daniels, that really affected me. All of that stuff that she talked about had a huge effect on me. And boy, I really would have liked to have heard from the former President. Those are the kinds of things you want to know. And finally, you want to know whether any juror had prejudged the case before deliberations began.
SOLOMON: Yeah. A lot to listen for. We shall see if any jurors take the opportunity to speak. Randy Zelin, we so appreciate you being with us today. Thank you for the insights.
ZELIN: Thank you.
SOLOMON: I thank our team of reporters and correspondents who have covered every angle of this historic day, one day after the former President was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records.
I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York. Jim, it's always been good to have you as well this hour.
SCIUTTO: Pleasure as well. Quite a day. Quite a week. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Our news continues with One World. That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
