Todd, thank you for being here. What do you think? The jury found Donald Trump guilty on all counts? I mean, Well, I don't know. I mean, it's a good question. I think to understand why a jury reaches a verdict is something that that every single trial lawyer in the country would love to be able to to answer honestly. Look, a lot goes into a jury verdict that that doesn't even include what happened at the trial. You know, the decisions that are made before the trial, the decisions that the court makes and that the parties decide about what witnesses to call, what evidence to put in. You know, so I think that at the end of the day, it remains true that that if the word of Michael Cohen was was not accepted at all, then you could not have convicted President Trump and the jury convicted. So at the end of the day, they they looked past what we thought were fatal flaws in Mr. Cohen's story and his past, and they reached a guilty verdict. Right. But it wasn't just the word of Michael Cohen. I mean, there was other evidence in this case, the documents they wanted to rehear. David Pecker is testimony. I mean, they took all of that into consideration. Sure, I know. Look, of course, the jury will take everything into consideration. They were very serious. Look, this jury showed up on time every day. They were very focused on the evidence and on the on the testimony that came in. And there was a lot. But look, at the end of the day, they it was still a case, in our view, as we've been saying for a year, that that relied on testimony of conversations and interactions that took place eight, seven, eight, nine years ago. And and certainly documents were or were part of the case. But the documents, the 34 counts were documents that that that really had very little connection to President Trump. But for the checks that the future citizen. Look, we I very much believe that the jury that the jury should have found President Trump not guilty. I'm a jury in my soul. I believe that. But believe it for a year. I mean, I left I left my job to do what I did the past six weeks. And and my conviction around what happened today and what I believe the facts show remains the same. I know you you disagree with the outcome, obviously. And but do you expect that he did have his day in court and it was a jury of his peers that made this decision? Well, no, not at all. Why not? No, I mean, look, I think and this is nothing that we haven't said repeatedly. We were in we were indicted for for conduct that happened in 2015, 16, 17, in a jurisdiction that that that it was very hard for us to get a fair trial. Kaitlyn, I mean, and I know the district attorney has said repeatedly said today this is a bread and butter case. We do this all the time. That is not true. It's just not true. It may be that they bring these types of charges regularly, business records charges, but you cannot find another case in the Manhattan District attorney's in the history of that office where they did what they did here, which is charge charge somebody for conduct that was seven, eight years old. Somebody's personal records right now, not corporate records. It's personal records. So so this is not I don't think I think it's naive to say that this is like any other case that we do what we did in this case is what we do all the time. No. And maybe it's okay. I mean, they think it's okay. They did it because I think the response to that would be, well, it's also not every day that someone running for president reimburses his attorney who paid off a woman to keep her silent. And, you know, when you when you say about getting a fair jury, this is where Donald Trump I mean, you know, New York. Well, this is where Donald Trump chose to have his businesses and spent decades of his life until just recently. I mean, that's why the case, which I think some people would say, well, that's ridiculous, that a jury couldn't put their beliefs aside. You just talked about how hard they worked in this case. Don't you think that they put their political beliefs or biases or stereotypes aside to make a fair decision here? I don't know what they did or didn't do. But listen, Kaitlyn, it matters, right? Like 100, we did it in groups of about 100. When we picked that jury, half the jury just walked out when invited to by the judge, if they couldn't be fair and impartial. So imagine if you're if you're if you're standing before a group of your peers. Right. That's what a jury system is supposed to be. So you're saying for a group of your peers and half of them walk out before a single question is asked just because they have a opinion of you that is so strong, they can't be certain for these 12, to be fair, did not. Well, they did not, of course, but but that's that's not really the point. The point isn't that 50 stayed. The point is that it's telling how many just walked out. And also the fact that President Trump did business in New York. That's not the law. The law doesn't say, well, tough luck. If that's where you do business, then that's where you're going to be built. His business here and he resided here. And I guess if you think, you know, if you talked about the testimony and when this happened, why didn't the cross-examination of these witnesses or what you put forward your defense, why didn't that work? Why did it still lead to this outcome? Well, that's a great question. If you you know the answer to that, tell me. I mean, look, I don't I think that at the end of the day, I do think it comes to something that we talk about a lot of times in our profession where there's a bias that you have that you can't get past. I mean, you say that this is where he built his business. That's true. Every single person on that jury knew Donald Trump, either as president, as candidate from The Apprentice. And so I don't accept that this was a fair that this was a fair place to try that what you're doing. What's your main argument going to be in your appeal? Look, I think we have I think there were a lot that is certainly an argument. I think the timing of this trial and was was really unfair to President Trump. There's so much publicity around the witnesses and around leading up to the trial that that it just our system of justice isn't supposed to be a system where every person that walks in the courtroom knows about the case. I mean, and it sounds it sounds like one of those cases where you can't avoid it. I mean, no matter what jurisdiction he's tried it, the law doesn't say Trump. The law doesn't say. But if you can't avoid it, tough luck, right? That's not what the law says. The law says a person is entitled to a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers. And we just think that because of everything around the lead of this trial, it made it very difficult for for the jury to to to to evaluate the evidence kind of independent of what they knew coming in. And we knew that. And that's not something that we haven't. We've been screaming that from the rooftops for that. You said a few of the arguments on the appeal. When do you plan to file your appeal? Well, there's a lot that look, this is one step in the process, right? So we have motions due in a couple of weeks in front of Judge Mershon, which we're going to vigorously fight and restate a lot of what I'm saying to you tonight and other things that happened in the trial that we think just made the trial unfair and including the testimony of Miss Daniels. If that is not successful, then as soon as we can appeal, we will. And the process in New York, because there's a sentencing and then and then and then we appeal from there. District Attorney Broad tonight did not directly say whether or not they are going to seek jail time for Donald Trump. Do you expect that he will? I have no idea. Look, there's there's a system in place that that where you rely on precedent and somebody like President Trump should never or never face a jail sentence based on this conduct. And it would just kind of confirm what we've been saying all along. And a lot of people say that we're wrong and that we're we're missing we're missing key pieces. But if if if other 77 year old first time offenders would never be sent to prison for this conduct, Judge Mershon will make that decision. That's right. Do you do you think the judge was fair throughout this case? I think that there were there were times when when we very much disagreed with the decisions Judge Mershon made. I think there were times when when when we certainly appreciated that he was making decisions, you know, weighing both sides and making decisions based upon that. But at the end of the day, there were key decisions made before the trial started. And during the trial that I don't want to use a fair or unfair, but that we think were not consistent with with the law. But you can't say if he was there or not. Well, I mean, in your favor sometimes he ruled against you. Yeah, but no, I think I think the thing, whether someone's fair or unfair is not really the question. The question is whether decisions that he made before the trial, in advance of the trial with the ominous motions, with the motions and alimony. And then during the trial, were they right under the law? Was he doing that? And that's what I think we have. We have disagreements. We think there were a lot that were not. Why did Donald Trump not ultimately take the stand here? Well, that's a very personal question to him and to me, honestly. And it's a very difficult question. Of course, he wanted to testify, and I don't say that because that's what he has said. He wanted to get his story out. I think the judge had made some decisions before the trial of the day of the trial started about what what would be allowed to be asked of him by the by the prosecutors if he took the stand. And some of those questions were really complicated to answer, because there's still appeals going on. And so there's a lot of there's a lot of decision points that go into whether somebody testifies. Ultimately, it's his decision. And he listened to us and he relied on our counsel and he reached a decision that he that he thought was right, which I very much agreed with. So that means your counsel was for him to not take the stand. I'm not going to tell you by counsel what he said. He relied on counsel and he went with that decision and he didn't take the stand. But ultimately, it was his it was his decision. And I never say and I think colleagues and folks that you have on here hopefully agree with me, I never say to somebody, don't take the stand. Right. That's a that's their decision and that's a decision that they have to make. But but I want them to have a they all want to know what will happen on the good and the bad if they do take the stand. So no regrets on him not taking the stand. Look, the verdict came down a couple hours ago. I don't know if I have any regrets about anything yet. I'm still I'm still thinking things through. And I think so or so is he and so is sort of everybody around him. But at this point, I don't think that we that there was a conviction because he did not take the stand when he was leaving. One thing he brought up were were the witnesses who were not called. And he was saying that there could have been witnesses that would have helped make the case. We never saw Keith Schiller, Allen Weisselberg, some key figures here who got brought up a lot. Why didn't the defense call any of these witnesses? Well, because we happen to live in America and we don't have the burden of proof. And so there's not that that's not the point. That's that's a question that is a loaded question that should not be asked of a defense attorney or a defendant. The question that we asked the jury and they ultimately obviously got passed is why? Why the prosecution didn't call those witnesses. Right. You as a defense. Right. You don't go into a case saying, I'm going to fill the holes for the prosecution. Right. And Keith Schiller and some of the other witnesses that were not ultimately called in our view, should have been called should have been called by the prosecution. And we we asked the jury to take a hard look at that. I don't know whether they did or not, but but they convicted. So I have a few more questions for you, if you'll stick around. We're going to take a quick commercial break and we'll be right back. Much more with Donald Trump's lead attorney in a moment. The presumptive Republican nominee, now a convicted felon, guilty on all 34 counts today in his unprecedented hush money trial here in New York. His lead attorney, Todd Blanch, back here with me. Can we just talk about what it was like in the room today? Because our reporters, everyone kind of thought, reporters included, that that no verdict was going to be reached. The judge himself seemed to think that he went to go get the jury and then he came back with a verdict in hand. I mean, you and Trump had been sitting there talking, laughing, and then obviously realized a verdict was coming. You were obviously surprised. Yes, very surprised. But that's what juries do. You know, everybody that's been talking for the past two days about what they thought, maybe a note met or what a jury was thinking or how long they would deliberate. You never know. You know, you never know. And I think there was as a day, there have been no notes really, all day. And as 430 came, we were going to just go home and start again tomorrow. And then the jury, you know, sent a note, said they reached a verdict. So it was surprising, but it wasn't surprising. Like, oh, my gosh, I'm shocked. We had been prepared. But were you geared for a guilty verdict? Trump seemed to be telling people, from what I heard, he thought it was going to be a hung jury. We were prepared for a guilty verdict. I mean, I don't know what people he was. President Trump was saying that, too. But but, of course, our in our view, we were we were fighting to win the case, of course, But a hung jury would have been as close to a win as you know, as we could have gotten. But we were prepared for for a conviction. I think that was expected. You know, I think a lot of people are curious because we hear from a lot of former Trump attorneys what it's like to be a Trump attorney. How has it been for the last seven weeks? Listen, I hear former Trump attorneys talk on TV all the time as well. I have found the last seven weeks to be and I don't want to use clichés, but it's been everything that I would expect and want out of. Out of a client, out of someone who is has really putting their life in your hands. It's been challenging. It's been rewarding. President Trump is there's there's a persona that people have about him that is completely wrong. There's a persona that people have that is that is right in some ways, too. It was the hardest in many people's lives. The hardest thing you do is go through a criminal trial. And he was I was impressed, especially today at the way that he carried himself and handled himself well. There were moments and I was in the court multiple times where you would see you and Trump were often sitting next to each other or the other attorneys. Emil Beauvais and Susan Douglas. But Trump would, you know, hit you on the arm, tap you on the arm, urge you to either object or clearly was writing you notes and saying, I mean, who ultimately was in charge of the defense strategy here? Was it you or was it Donald Trump? It was both of us. If there's a lawyer that comes in and says that they're in charge of their defense strategy, they're not doing a service to their client. Every decision that that we made, we made as a team, and not just President Trump or myself, but the whole team. And so and again, every every defendant, everybody who has their life on the line in history will tap their lawyer every one syllable and say, Hey, what about this? What about that? I never we had we not only did we get along during the trial, but we were on the same page about strategy and about what we should be doing and not doing. And it was you know, the one thing that I left with today is he impressed. Hopefully everybody that that got to see what happened today. The way that he handled himself in the courtroom, hearing that, you know, 34 counts of guilty, the way that he handled himself really throughout the entire trial as somebody who is is the Republican nominee not campaigning, sitting in court all day. And I was right there with him the whole time, and I have no complaints about it. But it did it make your job harder and more difficult when he was constantly going after the judge, calling him corrupt, saying that he was so, so biased, he couldn't breathe here, going after the witnesses in this case until the gag order. I mean, he violated the gag order at least ten times here in this case. Did it that make your job harder? And I don't think it made my job harder. It's something that we had to deal with during the trial as a team and understanding that there's a message that he needed to get to the people, to the American people, the people who are deciding who to vote for in November. And part of that decision has to be he is being judged for this trial, and that's a fact. And so when folks get upset that he responds to what he sees happening and responds forcefully, that's because he being he's being judged by everybody. He's being judged on television by voters in newspapers. And so the fact that he says this is my opinion, this is my view is not something that I looked at as making my job harder. I accepted that as being part of this job. And that is what he will continue to do. Like, I don't think he's going to stop tomorrow morning, Like he has to explain to the American people why this whole year in front of the Manhattan D.A. in this case was completely unjust. But can you do that without attacking Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen? I mean, there was one point where the judge had to use incredibly strong language with you because Trump audibly used an expletive when Stormy Daniels was on the witness stand. What when you say can you can you do that? You mean can you respond when it's important for him to have an outburst in court, follow witnesses on this? I don't think an outburst is the right way to describe what happened. He as you know, from being in the courtroom, it's the courtroom has very bizarre acoustics. And there's times when you can't hear a thing and there's times when voice carries and and I don't it was absolutely not until the witness heard it. Stormy Daniels heard it. I have no idea if that's true. Her attorney told told us that. Okay. Well, okay, Well, I that's the first I'm hearing that. And I. I don't know that that is true or false, but it was not an outburst. It was a reaction to. Again, it's easy to sit here and throw stones and say, well, how come he said this? How come we said that? Why don't you go on trial for something that happened? I don't mean this. You. I'm saying rhetorically, you for something that happened nearly 20 years ago, when you hear saying somebody saying something that you believe is demonstrably false and you can't do anything about it, and and, you know, there is a reaction that that folks agree with or disagree with. President Trump, in my view, behaved in a way that I thought was exemplary for a defendant facing what he was facing. And that environment in that courtroom for the past five weeks. I didn't think it was inappropriate when he he came out and would rail against judge for Sean and go after his daughter and other witnesses. In this case. He did not go after the judge's daughter after he was gagged at all. And by the way, by the way, the defense went out for the judge's daughter in public filings. So. So you want me to say that it was inappropriate for the for the for President Trump to do something that I believed under the law required to be brought to the judge's attention while attacking her on his you know, obviously, he has a massive following, making a point. A court filing is different than making a point on social. Why? I mean, I guess I question that so that the idea is as as a as as a attorney, I'm allowed to make motions, put arguments in front of the judge. But if my my client makes those same arguments to the people who are going to decide whether he should be president of the United States, somehow that's it's okay for me to do it. But he can't. I don't I don't know the venues. I think I think there's a point that's true to make your argument and doing it on social, attacking a private citizen, but only means hitting the papers. Right. That's the problem. Right. So it's easy to say, okay, Defense attorney, you can file those papers and there's no right. Attorney I mean, you've read those filings. We read those filings. Obviously, we talk about those filings. But but on this overall, I mean, you are relatively new to the Trump team. Your life has kind of changed since you've become a Trump attorney. You've moved to Florida. You're now registered as Republican, used to work at a big firm here. You're registered as a Democrat. Do you expect to continue to represent Trump in this case and in the federal cases? Yes, I listen, I absolutely I'm going to Florida next week and we have a motion to compel hearing and the case at the end of June. And we have a lot of work to do. We haven't been working on that case for the past six weeks. And we are we are going to start fighting every day in Florida. We have briefing in this case. We have a sentencing in this case, and we'll have an appeal. I have, you know, putting aside changing my life, I think President Trump has put faith in me and my team. And there's a lot of great people that I work with. And as long as he has that faith, we're going to keep on doing what we're doing. One thing about the Trump attorneys that we sometimes hear is whether or not they were paid after. It's always it's always a point of contention. Obviously, we were. Michael Cohen talked about it. Has that ever been an issue for you since you've Representative? No. And I don't know what Trump attorneys. I mean, I know that it's a fun folklore to talk about, that Trump attorneys don't get paid and whatnot, but I don't I mean, I don't know who that applies to, but I. Of course, of course, President Trump pay his bills and I am getting paid and if my mom's listening, I'm getting paid. And but that's not I'm not alone. I'm not alone in that. I don't it's not like I'm getting paid in the other. I mean, he has a lot of cases. He has a lot of lawyers right now. And I don't know if you're hearing something different, but the lawyers are getting paid to blanch. Quite a day for you. Thank you for coming in to sunset tonight.
