IN THE VOTE. >> NOVEMBER 5th. >> THIS IS SENTENCING, BY THE WAY, WHICH IS JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE RNC CONVENTION. >> AND JOINING US NOW ARE TWO PEOPLE WHO SPENT EVEN MORE TIME INSIDE THAT COURTHOUSE. ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, FORMER SENIOR MEMBER OF THE MUELLER PROBE AND AN MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST, AND MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST, LISA RUBIN. SO, ANDREW, FIRST TO YOU. TAKE IT 30,000 FEET VIEW OF ALL OF THIS. WHAT DOES THIS VERDICT, WHAT WE'VE SEEN FOR THE LAST SIX PLUS WEEKS, SEVEN WEEKS NOW, THE VERDICT, THE RESPONSE, WE'VE NOW HEARD A RESPONSE FROM DONALD TRUMP AND PRESIDENT BIDEN. THESE ARE THE TWO CANDIDATES. THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT WHERE WE ARE AS A COUNTRY, AND THE RESPECT FOR LAW, AND WHAT ARE THE DANGER ZONES AHEAD? >> SO THE HARD PART OF THIS IS THAT ALL OF US AT THIS TABLE SAW THE TRIAL. WE WERE THERE. WE WITNESSED IT. WE COULD SEE WHO WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS. WE SAW THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE WITNESSES WERE IN LARGE PART, ALLIES OF DONALD TRUMP. IT WAS DAVID PECKER WHO WAS NOT REALLY CROSS EXAMINED AND CALLED A LIAR BY DONALD TRUMP. ONE OF THE WITNESSES WHO WAS THE LEADOFF WITNESS, ONE OF THE MOST DAMAGING WITNESSES. ONE OF ONLY TWO WITNESSES, THE JURY SAID WE WOULD LIKE A READ BACK. THAT IS SOMEBODY ALIGNED WITH DONALD TRUMP, AND AT NO POINT DURING THE LENGTHY DEFENSE SUMMATION DID THEY SAY DAVID PECKER IS A LIAR. THEY DON'T BELIEVE HIM. AND YET, THEY DON'T LIKE THE RESULT, AND SUDDENLY, FIRST WE WENT FROM, YOU KNOW, THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED, NOW THE TRIAL IS RIGGED. I'M REMINDED OF WHEN HILLARY CLINTON SAID, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE DIDN'T GET AN EMMY, THE EMMYS ARE RIGGED. IF YOU LOSE, IT'S RIGGED. IF YOU WIN, IT'S FAIR. IT'S JUST THE SAME LIGHT MOTIF, AGAIN, AND AGAIN. BUT WHAT'S HARD IS THAT WE WERE ALL THERE, AND SO WE KNOW, IN FACT, THAT THE JUDGE WAS FAIR. WE KNOW THAT THE WITNESSES WERE, AS THEY SHOULD BE, HAD TO TESTIFY ON DIRECT AND BE SUBJECT TO LENGTHY CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND THIS IS A JURY DECISION OF 12 NEW YORKERS WHERE DONALD TRUMP USED TO LIVE AND LIVED FOR MANY MANY YEARS, SO IT'S CERTAINLY HIS PEERS. >> THE SERIOUSNESS. WE ALL SAW IT. WHEN THEY CAME IN ON THE LAST DAY FOR THE JURY INSTRUCTION, AND I WAS IN THERE, DIDN'T LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP. LOOKED STRAIGHT AHEAD. LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE TIME, EITHER LOOKED AT JUAN MERCHAN OR WERE TAKING NOTES. THERE WAS A SENSE OF SERIOUSNESS OF PURPOSE. NO DISTRACTION. NO LOOKING AROUND. THIS WAS, IT SEEMED TO ME, ALMOST A LESSON OF THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE THAT 12 ORDINARY MANHATTANITES, AND DONALD TRUMP DOESN'T THINK THEY'RE ORDINARY, HE THINKS THEY CAME IN AGAINST HIM. BUT 12 PEOPLE WHO GAVE UP THEIR DAYS AND WEEKS AND PRIVACY NOW BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN THE SYSTEM. >> YEAH, AND YOU KNOW WHO ELSE BELIEVES IN THE SYSTEM OR AT LEAST HE BELIEVES IN THE SYSTEM A FEW DAYS AGO IS TODD BLANCHE WHO OPENED HIS SUMMATION BY EXALTING THE POWER OF THE JURY, STARTING BY THANKING THEM FOR THEIR TIME AND THEIR ATTENTION AND THEN REMINDING THEM THAT THE DECIDER ULTIMATELY OF THE FACTS IN THE CASE WAS NOT THE JUDGE OR A GROUP OF JUDGES BUT THEM. AND YET LAST NIGHT, THERE HE IS ON THE CNN SAYING THAT ALWAYS IT WAS CLEAR TO HIM THAT HIS CLIENT WAS NEVER GOING TO GET A FAIR TRIAL. AND WHEN HE WAS PRESSED ON THAT BY THE HOST OF THE PROGRAM, HE ULTIMATELY SAID WHAT WAS UNFAIR ABOUT IT WAS THE VENEER, MEANING WHERE THE TRIAL WAS SITUATED HERE IN MANHATTAN. NOT ANYTHING WRONG WITH THOSE 12 PARTICULAR JURORS. HE STILL CAN'T BRING HIMSELF TO CRITICIZE THOSE 12 PARTICULAR PEOPLE. HE WON'T CRITICIZE THE PROCESS. IT'S JUST THERE'S SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT THE WATER IN THE CITY, APPARENTLY, THAT DOESN'T SUIT THEM. >> HE SEEMED TO BE BLAMING HIS CLIENT. WE HAD ALL INFERRED WITH A LOT OF REASON TO DO THAT THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS INFLUENCING THE WAY HIS DEFENSE WAS ORGANIZED, DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE. ROBERT COSTELLO BEING PUT ON THE STAND, WHICH WAS CLEARLY A BIG MISTAKE, AND HE SAID THAT HIMSELF IN AN INTERVIEW, WHICH, I THOUGHT WAS STRANGE, AND IT WAS AN INTERVIEW ON FOX, TO SUGGEST THAT, WELL, THAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S FAULT. HE'S THE LAWYER. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LONGER, KATY, YOU REFERRED TO THIS EARLIER, AS THEY HEAD DOWN TO FLORIDA, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOME PRETRIAL HEARINGS BEFORE JUDGE CANNON ON THE MAR-A-LAGO DOCUMENTS CASE, HOW MUCH LONGER HE WILL BE THE LAWYER. >> ALINA HABBA IS STILL HIS LAWYER AND SHE HELPED LOSE HIM HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. ANSWER THAT, LISA. >> LOOK, I THINK TODD WAS IN BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE IN ANSWERING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE OF WHO HIS PARTICULAR CLIENT IS. IF HE TAKES OWNERSHIP OF ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS, YOU ALSO HAVE ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS YOUR CLIENT, SOMEBODY WHO WAS FAMOUSLY MICRO MANAGERIAL WHO HAS A FRAGILE EGO, WHO WANTS TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE, AND OF COURSE, ETHICALLY, YOUR CLIENT IS ALLOWED TO DIRECT THEIR DEFENSE, AND SO I FEEL FOR HIM IN THAT MOMENT BECAUSE HAD HE TAKEN IT ALL ON HIMSELF, NOT ONLY IS THAT PROBABLY INACCURATE, BUT HE ALSO MAY HAVE FACED GREATER CLIENT COMPLAINTS. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU MADE THE DECISIONS YOURSELF. I'M THE MASTER MIND AND THAT'S A CLIENT THAT BELIEVES THE DEFENSE IS THE RIGHT ONE. I DON'T SHARE THAT OPINION. I THINK THAT'S DONALD TRUMP'S GENUINE ONE. >> THE THING THAT STRUCK ME, ANDREW AND LISA, WAS HIM SAYING HE WAS GAGGED, THEREFORE HE DIDN'T TESTIFY. HE SEEMED TO CONFLATE THINGS. HE WAS GIVEN THE CHANCE. IT WAS MADE CLEAR, THE JUDGE, IN FACT, IN OPEN COURT MADE SURE HE AGREED WITH THAT, AND HE NODDED. >> ABSOLUTELY. HE MADE THAT COMMENT EARLY ON. THE JUDGE IN COURT CORRECTED HIM, AND DONALD TRUMP, AS HE'S THE TO DO AT THE END OF COURT DATES SAID THAT. THIS WAS JUST GOING BACK TO, I MEAN, THIS IS LIKE FACTS DON'T MATTER. THIS IS REALLY EARTH 2. JUST SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT DONALD TRUMP HAD A RIGHT TO TESTIFY. IT WAS STRESSED BY THE JUDGE THAT HE COULD HAVE HOPPED ON THE STAND AND TESTIFIED ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, AND IT WAS HIS CHOICE NOT TO DO THAT. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, AT TRIAL, HE HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY. WHAT HE DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO IS SAY OUTSIDE OF COURT, OH, I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE DAVID PECKER. HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HOPE HICKS. BOTH OF THOSE WITNESSES PROVIDED DEVASTATING EVIDENCE. THEY WERE NOT CROSS EXAMINED TO SAY THAT THEY WERE LYING. THERE WAS A CHOICE HE MADE, AND SO NOW TO SAY DON'T BELIEVE THE PROCESS, THESE WERE IN MANY WAYS HIS ALLIES GIVING THE MOST DAMMING EVIDENCE. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER DAY, I CALLED THIS A NOVEL CASE. YOU SAID IT WASN'T A NOVEL CASE. ELIE HONIG, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, HE ARGUED IN NEW YORK MAGAZINE THAT THIS WAS REALLY A BESPOKE CASE, THAT THESE CHARGES WERE TAILORED FOR ONE PARTICULAR DEFENDANT, AND THAT WAS DONALD TRUMP. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE JUDGE GAVE A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO A DEMOCRATIC GROUP, BUT THAT STILL IS AGAINST THE RULES. HE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALVIN BRAGG RAN IN SOME WAYS AS A MAN WHO WOULD GO AFTER DONALD TRUMP. HE UNDERSTANDS THE ARGUMENTS THAT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS TEAM ARE MAKING THAT THIS WAS NOT FAIR. WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THIS ELIE HONIG ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW THIS CASE COULD BE RIPE FOR APPEAL, AND THE WAY THAT IT WAS TAILORED TO DONALD TRUMP, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THAT? HOW DO YOU SEE IT, ANDREW? >> I THINK THIS IS FAIR. IT'S USEFUL TO GO THROUGH THESE -- I'M REALLY HAPPY YOU'RE RAISING THEM. LET ME GIVE YOU QUICK RESPONSES THAT YOU WOULD HEAR. FIRST, ON THE MONEY, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT JUAN MERCHAN, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT -- >> $34, VERY SMALL. >> IT IS DIMINUTIVE. HE SAID THERE'S NO REASON TO GET OFF THE CASE FOR THAT. >> THEY BEING THE ETHICS PANEL. >> AND HE WAS RANDOMLY CHOSEN FOR THE CASE THE WAY AILEEN CANNON WAS IN FLORIDA. >> ABSOLUTELY. AND ALL OF US WERE IN THAT COURTROOM. DOES ANYONE -- I MEAN, WE WERE SAYING THIS BEFORE WE KNEW WHAT THE VERDICT WAS THAT THIS WAS A FAIR PROCESS. WE WERE MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF OUR VIEWERS KNEW IN CASE THIS WAS AN ACQUITTAL THAT THIS WAS A FAIR PROCESS. SO IT HAPPENS TO HAVE BEEN A CONVICTION. >> WHAT ABOUT THE CHARGES AND THE WAY THAT THEY ELEVATED IT FROM MISDEMEANOR TO A FELONY? >> SURE. SO WITH RESPECT TO -- CAN I JUST DO THE BRAGG COMMENT. >> GO AHEAD. >> BECAUSE THAT'S SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. IT IS MISSING THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT THE D.A. DID WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE, WHICH IS TO SAY, I AM NOT BRINGING THIS CASE. IT IS NOT READY. AND HE TOOK ENORMOUS FLAK, AND NOW, YOU KNOW WHAT, HE HAS A RIGHT TO SORT OF -- HE HAD A RIGHT TO SAY, I TOLD YOU SO AT THAT PRESS CONFERENCE, AND HE DIDN'T. HE TOOK THE HIGH ROAD. THIS IS A MAN WHO, WHAT YOU SEE WHAT YOU GET. THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO'S THE REAL DEAL. WHEN THE CASE WASN'T READY, HE SAID NO. THAT IS THE CLEAR FACTUAL RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION. >> I WANT TO ASK YOUQUICKLY ABOUT ALVIN BRAGG, HE MADE A CHOICE NOT TO DO ANY INTERVIEWS. HE MADE A STATEMENT. HE DIDN'T TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, UNLIKE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO WAS ON MULTIPLE NETWORKS, ANSWERED LOTS OF QUESTIONS. I WONDER WHAT YOU THINK IS HAPPENING THERE. >> I THINK THEY HAVE DIFFERENT ROLES. AND I THINK THAT THE PROSECUTOR WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY, IS MUCH MORE IN THE SORT OF JACK SMITH, BOB MUELLER MODE OF I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN
