Trump Trials and Tribulations: N.Y. Trial Dispatch, Trump Convicted

[Introduction]

Benjamin Wittes: I'm Benjamin Wittes, and this is the Lawfare Podcast, here with Tyler McBrien, Anna Bower, Quinta Jurecic, and Roger Parloff. Today, we're talking about the conviction of Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records, which happened only a couple hours ago.

[Main Podcast]

Welcome to Trump's Trials and Tribulations: Special Conviction Edition, New York Trial. It is 7 o'clock p.m. east coast time, and moments ago, a jury of his peers convicted Donald Trump of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. And let us start with everything we know about what happened. Tyler and Anna, split it up as you like. Tell us about the late afternoon starting at around 4:20 today.

Tyler McBrien: So, at around 4:20, I think a lot of the press were expecting some sort of note around 4ish, because we were told that we would stop at 4:30 or be told that we would go later to 6. So around 4:20 there was a bit of a buzz, I guess there was a buzzer, and we got the jury note. Justice Merchan came back and told us that unfortunately, well he didn't say unfortunately, but we would not be getting a verdict, and he would be excusing the jury at 4:30. And so he left to go, I guess, presumably get the jury, to bring them back to excuse them.

And then it was like 4:30, 4:31, 4:32, bit of confusion, and then all of a sudden he comes back with a different jury note. This one saying that the jury has decided to return a verdict, which was shocking. I think the, the mood, I want to know what it was like in the courtroom. I was in overflow. It was electric. Everyone, everyone were,  audibly gasped and someone said, my God, behind me.

But then we were, we learned that it would be about 30 minutes until we learned the verdict because the, the jurors needed that amount of time to fill out the verdict forms. So in, in the next 30 minutes or so our feed was actually cut, our video feed, and remained cut a little bit later, which I can get into, but, yeah, Anna and I don't know if you wanted to take from-

Anna Bower: Yes,

Tyler McBrien: -from inside the courtroom.

Anna Bower: I have a fun story about what was happening kind of before. So as Tyler said, of course, we thought the jury was going to be excused, but there was a kind of feeling once Justice Merchan exited the courtroom around like, 4:15, I would say they were going to be excused at 4:30. He left. And, and then, you know, it kind of the minutes were ticking by. I was in the courtroom and there was just a lot of tension in the air because people started to get the feeling that something else was going to happen. I can't quite explain it. Lisa Rubin, who is an MSNBC legal analyst turned to me, she was sitting next to me, and she said, I think something else is going on.

And at the time, actually, she had no, you know, the jury note had not even been handed to Justice Merchan. But there was kind of just this feeling something weird was in the air, something was going to happen, so everything was silent, the air was thick with tension. And all of a sudden, behind me, I hear the courtroom doors open loudly, they're clanging, and everyone turns to look to see who it is, because typically, keep in mind, people aren't really just allowed to come and go in this courtroom as they please. But the door, the doors swing open and it's, we all whip our head around, it's Andrew Giuliani. So, and he just, took a seat in the back. And of course Andrew Giuliani, being Rudy Giuliani's son, it, he's been there quite often throughout the trial because-

Benjamin Wittes: Arguing with protestors.

Anna Bower: Right, but so it, agreed, Tyler, it was a very, it was one of those moments where everyone, I also heard a few, oh my gods because people just couldn't help but kind of, feel, you know, we were all expecting that the jury was going to be excused, so there was just a little bit of surprise. And also it all happened, seemed to happen very quickly after that. The jury, there were these 30 minutes that passed while the jurors filled out the verdict form and then Justice Merchan came in and he, the juries, the jurors filed into the jury box that they filed into many times before, but today for the last time.

And none of them that I could see made eye contact with Trump as they were coming in. There was one juror who it looked as though he was kind of about to sit down and he smiled a little bit as though he was just kind of relieved to, you know, that he was finally sitting down to deliver this verdict. But otherwise the jurors were pretty expressionless as the, the verdict reading proceedings got underway. So Ben, I don't know if you want to turn to that moment next.

Benjamin Wittes: Yeah, so let's, let's talk about that. What- there are several ways that people read a verdict in different courts. Did they poll the jurors individually? Did they do each count individually? How did the, like, what was the mechanics of reading 12 jurors on 34 counts? That's, you know, 160 some odd individual juror, individual counts. How did they break it up?

Anna Bower: Well, so let's start first with, they first just go to the jury foreman and you know, he says, yes, we have a verdict. And then the court officer will ask, you know, what is your verdict on count one and then proceed all the way down through count 34. And for each individual count, the foreman will respond guilty or not guilty. In this case, it was every single count was guilty. I will say as he was reading it, it was, kind of a, quite an experience to hear every single time because it kind of got very repetitive. I mean, they're doing this 34 times and he's just saying guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty over and over again. And you're sitting there like, wow, it is, this is the former president of the United States, leading presidential front runner for the Republican party. And he is, as we're sitting here in this room being found to be guilty of 34 felony counts. So it was just kind of an incredible moment in terms of the history and feeling of it all.

But after this happened, they do poll the jurors, Ben. And, and the way that they do it in New York is that they go to each juror, and instead of saying for each individual count, was that your verdict? They kind of just said, is this your verdict? Meaning, you know, are all of these counts as the foreman has responded to each one of them, is that what you, you know, in, in kind of total, in some, is that what you, what your verdict is? And they all said, yes, of course. I think that was the only time that Trump turned his head to look over to the jurors. Although Tyler, you might've gotten, I know that your video feed cut out, but you might've gotten a better look at that than I did because I was behind him.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah. So, in some kind of cruel twisted joke, the video feed cut out for counts one through about 24. I think it was so shocking and that-

Benjamin Wittes: It shocked the video out of existence.

Tyler McBrien: No one is even mad. Everyone's like, how could this be? This is, this is insane. But it kicked back on at count 24. Trump's face to me is just, was the typical kind of scowl. I didn't really, he didn't really betray much emotion from what I could tell. And then, but he was looking straight forward when the, each count was read for guilty, and then, as Anna mentioned, the first time I saw him actually turn toward the jury was one by one when they were answering the affirmative during the poll for their verdict. I, I didn't know if they were, if they spoke it verbally or they just nodded their head yes, but it, it did appear that Trump was like, tracking each person as, as they answered.

Anna Bower: Yeah and, and I will also add too, the people in the overflow room didn't have video or audio I believe for some time and then the people in the courtroom didn't have internet access. I, I think it must have had something to do with the security situation because it was all everything seemed to be working fine at different points of the day and then all of a sudden when the verdict was announced we all lost internet access. So it was just funny because at the very time after all of these weeks that the members of the press like needed to really report something, there were just, it was kind of a comedy of errors.

But, so what, what I saw though of Trump after, you know, I, I can talk a little bit about what I saw of him after the verdict was read. So the jurors after this, they read their, their verdict aloud. They polled the jurors. The jurors are excused. Justice Merchan, of course, before they leave, thanks them for their service. He also importantly told them that, you know, the restrictions that he had previously put on them in terms of you know, what they could, who they could or could not talk to about the case, all that, those, those restrictions are lifted, but he said, you're not required to speak to anyone about this, it's your choice, but he, he then excused them. And they left. And then of there were some proceedings that maybe we can, can get to before I kind of get to what the color was at the end when Trump was leaving, which is the first time I really saw a reaction from him.

Benjamin Wittes: Yeah. So let's talk about, uh, the judge set a sentencing deadline, date of July 11th. What, Tyler, once he excused the jury, I assume, then he turned to these other matters, what did he deal with?

Tyler McBrien: Well, I'm, if I remember the sequence of events correctly, I believe Todd Blanche first immediately stood to-

Anna Bower: Motion for a judgment of acquittal.

Tyler McBrien:  Right, exactly. And he gave, it was almost like a halfhearted, I think, he was very quiet, I don't know what it was like in the courtroom, he was quiet.

Benjamin Wittes: Was he whining?

Anna Bower: No

Tyler McBrien: No, he was, he was defeated.

Anna Bower: He was, yeah.

Tyler McBrien: He was away from the microphone at first. And then once he kind of got close to the microphone, he started talking about, it was basically just based on Michael Cohen's testimony. And it was, it was garbled and it was a bit, yeah, quiet. And then we heard from the people and Steinglass got up, very shortly said, I respectfully disagree. There's plenty of evidence you know, for this and Cohen's testimony was credible. And pretty, it was a pretty, you know, summary judgment immediately denied. And then I believe we, we got-

Anna Bower: Oh, wait, can I just say something really quickly about that? One of the interesting moments with the motion for judgment of acquittal: Blanche was arguing that Cohen's a perjurer and he said something to the effect of, there's no reason the court should allow the verdict knowing that. And the court should therefore enter a judgment of acquittal. And Justice Merchan, when he finished speaking, said, I'm sure you misspoke when you said, knowing. You're not suggesting that I know anyone committed perjury. And Todd Blanche, and it was very, you know, pointed he and, and then, of course, Todd Blanche backtracked and said, you know, no, your honor, of course not. But ultimately Justice Merchan then did deny the judgment of, motion for judgment of acquittal.

Benjamin Wittes: And so then I assume he opened the door for further motion.

Tyler McBrien: Right. So, he said, he asked the defense, he said, if there are any other motions to be filed, he asked the defense to file them within two weeks, I believe. And then he set another date further, perhaps a week after that for the prosecution to respond.

Benjamin Wittes: And Anna, what do we know about sentencing practices in New York state courts in white collar cases? We have a sentencing date set for essentially two months from now? One month from now, really? A month and a month and a couple weeks? Does it get briefed? Does it get argued? What's the, what's the procedure in New York?

Anna Bower: Right. So when Justice Merchan set the July 11th sentencing date, he also told, he instructed Todd Blanche to schedule a probation interview, which means that Trump will be interviewed by a probation officer and a pretrial, a pre-sentence report will be made for him, which he discussed-

Benjamin Wittes: What I would give to be a fly on the wall for that.

Tyler McBrien: I've heard that, it's, it's even, I've heard reporters who, who know this even better, that it's, if, they kept saying, you know, if, if people think 100 Center Street was undignified or, or dingy you know, the probation office in which he's going to have to, you know, undergo this interview is even worse.

Anna Bower: Right, and a probation interview typically in a pre-sentence report will discuss things like, you know, someone's character and history, what their future or present employment opportunities are. And you have to imagine, like, It's like a probation officer being like, so what are your, what's your job? And it's like, I'm running for president of the United States.

Benjamin Wittes: I may be the president of the United States, or not.

Anna Bower: Or not.

Benjamin Wittes: I may be the proprietor of a golf club.

Anna Bower: You know, they'll, they'll look at criminal history that kind of thing. And, and so then that will be something that will be submitted. What I don't know, and I will find out in the coming days because I've asked so many people about this, is whether or not that is something that becomes public in any form or fashion at some point. It seems to me that from the reporters who have worked on high profile cases, in recent history in New York state court have told me that they often do not see those.

Benjamin Wittes: In the federal system you never do.

Anna Bower: That's what I was going to say in the federal system you don't see them. I think that makes total sense. So often it's things that are, you know, it's it's more for the judge to consider rather than, you know, for the general public. And sometimes it contains information that you would suspect that people would you know, have, want to have more privacy around. You don't lose your right to privacy based on the fact that you are now a convicted felon like Donald Trump. And so, I think it makes sense that maybe that would not become public, but that is something that I just am not sure in New York state courts, whether there's a difference there. So that is what happens.

And then of course, there will be a sentencing hearing. And we've discussed before Roger, actually, maybe you want to talk a little bit, cause I know you've done some work on this about what the possible sentences are for Class E felonies in New York. And then, you know, of course, we can speculate about a possible sentence, but, and what Justice Merchan might do, but I, I'm not sure that I feel confident saying what I think he'll do at this point.

Benjamin Wittes: Yeah, I think we should leave that to our friends at MSNBC to do the speculation on, on sentencing. That said Roger, what do we know about sentencing ranges for this offense? What are the parameters in which we could irresponsibly speculate if we were going to irresponsibly speculate, which we're not?

Roger Parloff: Well, he'll be eligible for probation because he's a first offender and it's non violent. And-

Benjamin Wittes: What about first offender, nonviolent first offenders who endanger the judge's daughter? Like, I mean, he, there is some, I'm, I'm, I'm sort of joking, but I'm sort of not. There's some genuinely outrageous conduct in the context of this litigation.

Anna Bower: And who have been held in contempt 10 times now.

Benjamin Wittes: Right. There are some aggravating factors that surely the judge has some latitude to consider. No?

Roger Parloff: Well, I think you'll probably stay away from mentioning literally the contempt since he has already sentenced on those and, you know, there are statutory limits. But he does have more, you know, he can give probation. He does, certainly doesn't have to.

The, it's a class E felony. So, the max, I believe is one and a third to four. The way it works is if he gives a sentence, he can give a sentence. below a year, which is called the determinant sentence. So he could give like five months which is I think what he gave Allen Weisselberg for when he pled guilty to 15 felonies. And Weisselberg was about 76, but of course, Weisselberg was also acting. Well, anyway, I'll leave that. But if it's more than one it's called an indeterminate sentence. So, you, you pick a top figure, like four is the max, and then the bottom figure would be a third of that. So, one and a third to four.

He could also give one to three. And then, of course, there's 34 counts. So, theoretically he could, he could impose consecutive sentences. That's rare. I, I honestly don't know the, the rules about that, but I, I wouldn't, I really wouldn't expect that. I've been told that in, normally he is a, tough on white collar crime. But obviously this is sui generis in every way.

Benjamin Wittes: Yeah. My assumption is- The other thing that's sui generis about this case is that generally speaking, if this is going to be your lead charge, you're not going to trial. And so the, you know, the list of cases where the defendant has actually, with this as a lead charge, put the government to the time and expense of trial is going to be really short.

So I'm not sure what your comps are going to be for something like this. And in the federal system, that would matter a lot. So I think, you know, I'll be really interesting to see what the, what the sentencing briefs look like. I would be shocked if the government didn't ask for actual jail time and, and of course he will ask for none, but I, I'm really interested to see how the, the thing is plausibly calculated.

Roger Parloff: And while he's, this is his first criminal conviction. There is a long, you know, history of adjudicated fraud and, and which he can take into account. All of the stuff that was kept out in the Sandoval hearing, you know, all of that, yes, can be taken into account.

Benjamin Wittes: And there's a bunch of other pending cases which you can't take into account, but can lurk in the back of your mind. And, I mean, I think this is a situation where a district judge, you know, has a huge amount of discretion. And, you know, Trump could come to regret having daily press conferences blasting this guy's daughter. You know, it's, it's like, like, you know, sometimes that stuff really can come back and bite you in the ass.

All right Quinta you have were in the courtroom for some of this case but you've also been sort of doing some of the one step back thinking about the, the issues that are not in the courtroom or just outside of the courtroom. To what extent are you at all surprised by this outcome and what is your reaction to it?

Quinta Jurecic: I don't think I'm surprised. I think it, you know, it's a mugs game figuring out, you know, gauging ahead of time what was going to happen. But as I think I said earlier today, I was pretty impressed with how the prosecution built the case and laid it out. I think that it came into a lot more focus over recent weeks and months than it initially had when the indictment was first handed up and there was a lot of ambiguity. And so I do think that this was just a stronger case than it maybe initially seemed when Bragg first unveiled the charges in March 2023.

I was really struck actually, Bragg had a press conference right before we started this live stream where he, he essentially repeated some of the framing that he used in his press conference announcing the charges saying, you know, this is a business records falsifications case. This is something that we do all the time. You know, we're Manhattan prosecutors. We operate in the financial capital of the world. This is our bread and butter. And really framing it as something that is run of the mill and almost normal. Now that diverges from another framing that Bragg also adopted in the interim, but which he now seems to have set aside, which is that, you know, this is a case about election interference, and it's very important to the future of American democracy. That unless I am mistaken, did not crop up, very much, if at all, during the press conference. So we've, we've now kind of-

Benjamin Wittes: Returned to our origins.

Quinta Jurecic: Exactly, exactly. But I mean, I think there, there's something true to both aspects. You know, this was a case about an election conspiracy. That was the object offense that the prosecution eventually settled on to step up the misdemeanor falsification of business records to a felony. And it was also a run of the mill business records falsification case, and I think you saw that in the way that, you know, the prosecutors knew what they were doing, the judge knew what he was doing. You know, in, in a lot of ways this case was strange and absurd. And in a lot of ways, it was very, very familiar to the people who were, you know, used to working within that, that system.

And I do think I kind of, you know, come away from this by thinking, you know, most defendants who go to trial are convicted. And there are a lot of ways in which Trump is obviously not a typical defendant. There are a lot of ways in which the court system is giving him allowances that it wouldn't to a typical defendant, and I don't want to lose sight of that. But in another sense, you know, like a lot of other people who got hit with 34 counts, you, you know, he, he made an unusual decision to go to trial. And like most people who go to trial, he got convicted and now he's going to go to sentencing. And I think this kind of goes back to Anna's point about the, there's a weirdly humdrum aspect to the whole thing.

Benjamin Wittes: Yeah. And it gets more humdrum as it goes on, right? You, then you have to have your meeting with the, you know, with the parole office, right? In that,

Quinta Jurecic: I would love to see that.

Benjamin Wittes: Okay. So, I want to just point out in this spirit of Quinta's point that she was not surprised, and Tyler and Anna will back me up on this, that I was off on my prediction of the outcome here by two hours and three minutes. This morning, I predicted that the conviction would be on all counts at 2:17. And it came at 4:20.

Anna Bower: But your initial-

Tyler McBrien: Oh, I was gonna say, you know who was bang on though? Jacob Shamsian. Who, I don't know-

Quinta Jurecic: Jacob, you shouldn't have backed away from your initial prediction.

Tyler McBrien: Friend of the pod Jacob, tweeted at, at 4:20 when Justice Merchant announced that there would be no verdict and he was gonna dismiss the jury. He tweeted, here's why the, here's why I'm 100 percent certain that the jury will deliberate and deliver a verdict. And you know what? He was joking, but he was right.

Anna Bower: He was.

Benjamin Wittes: All right. I want to address an issue that we would not be Lawfare if we didn't address, which is the fact that both of America's favorite paralegals were on stage with Alvin Bragg when he gave his press conference. And one of them was in fact in the frame with him standing right in back of him at the time. And so it's a huge day for two of the three contestants in America's favorite paralegals. And I think we actually know who now won the competition because obviously the winning side gets the winning paralegal.

So it has to Georgia or Jaden. And Jaden, while Georgia was on the stage with Alvin Bragg, Jaden was actually in the shot standing right behind him. So I think Jaden's probably won, gets, gets the rose.

Tyler McBrien: Proximity to power.

Anna Bower: Why can't we have a, why can't we have two America's favorite paralegals?

Benjamin Wittes: Yeah, all right, we do. Georgia, you, you get, you get but all the contestants can come work at Lawfare if they want. All right, we have one more, I have one more thing to point out, and then I will give everybody a chance to point out some interesting thing. That I just want people's attention to spend a moment on, which is the polls. We have had over the last we have this incredible opportunity in political science that comes along like never right now, which is we have an incredibly stable baseline of Trump and Biden running essentially even with Trump a little bit ahead the whole year. If you, if you look at the 538 average of polls, they run like this, they're like a point apart for the entire year.

And then a major party candidate for president on a national ticket, of one of the two major parties, is convicted of 34 felonies. And we have the opportunity for the first time in American history to say, what does that do to a tie race? Do people care if a major party candidate is convicted of felonies. We've never, as a society, had the opportunity to test that question before, and now we do, and it's presented in this incredibly pure way. Like, if you're on a computer, call up 538. Just look at that graph. Look at how stable it is. And now, on, what's the date? 5-30-2024, we have a conviction on 34 felonies for one, but not the other of those candidates. So we even have a control. And what does it do to those polls? I want to leave you with that thought. Quinta.

Quinta Jurecic: I don't, I want to push back a little against this because if you had a two control, a true control, both of those candidates would be Donald Trump. You know, there are a lot of, there are a lot of variables that we're not isolating here. I do, I will say it will be interesting to watch what happens. I think it will be difficult to know how to read the polls because you might get what's called partisan non response, where, you know, Democrats are more excited to answer the phone and talk to a pollster over the coming weeks. And Republicans are maybe a little shamefaced and more likely to not pick up the phone or hang up when they hear a pollster or someone or so forth.

So I don't, I don't want to say, you know, we’ll have a clear indication one way or another. I would also suggest that, I mean, my sense has always been that if this was gonna have an effect in the race. It was going to be around the margins, which sounds like an insane thing to say about someone who was just convicted on 34 felony counts, but I think it's true.

You know, there's a, there's a core. You know, the line about Trump is, right, that he has a, he has a, a high floor but a, there's a ceiling as well and he sort of stays within that range. And so I think the question is, you know, those people are not going to desert him. They may even be galvanized. I think the question is whether the sort of, the stray voters who, you know, are the people who maybe voted for him in 2016, but not in 2020. The sort of demographic is, you know, suburban, you know, white suburban women, right, who are, you know, worried about what their kids are learning in school and want low taxes, you know, whether they are, you know, look at this and say, oh, you know, he's so rude. I can't really bring myself to, to vote for this kind of a person.

And you only, you don't need that many people in swing states to look at that and, you know, decide that they're going to stay home or hold their nose and vote for Biden or vote for RFK Jr. I don't know. So I do think that there's, this could really affect the race, but I wouldn't necessarily expect to see that immediately or dramatically in the polling.

Benjamin Wittes: So I didn't say what I expected and I didn't expect whether I said what I thought it would be at the margins or. My point is that it is exceptionally rare that you get a stable race with a really dramatic punctuating event. Like a criminal conviction of one of the candidates, and you get to see, you get to measure, over what time period do people seem to care, what magnitude do people seem to care.

Just think, the political scientists in us should take this moment very seriously. And by the way, if it doesn't move the numbers that is a very grave sign for Joe Biden, because you don't get a gift like this very often from the gods, you know, running a political campaign. All right, we're gonna have a quick roundup, final thoughts. Roger.

Roger Parloff: Well, politically I'm, you know, I shouldn't be commenting. I you know, I thought Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the lockbox debate so I'm not. But you know, we saw Trump literally closed his eyes throughout this thing. And his party has figuratively closed its eyes throughout this thing. I, I don't expect it to have a big effect. You know, I actually think getting past January 6th was a more astounding thing. The fact that he has come back from January 6th where, you know, 140 police officers were injured and between four and seven people were left dead, depending on how you score it. There's something going on here that is, you know, it began before this trial. It's, it's, it's beyond, and I can't, I can't help you with it. I don't know where we go.

Benjamin Wittes: Tyler, your closing thoughts.

Tyler McBrien: This is I think I'll, I'll be one thing I'll take away from watching Trump most days in court. This is something I've, I've written about before, is this very strange feeling of watching him sit there with his eyes closed sometimes, but for, with the exception of, I think, two instances, completely silent, sitting there, listening to it all. He was silent through the, through most of Stormy Daniels testimony. He was silent through all of Michael Cohen's testimony. He was silent through each guilty count being read twice, essentially, you know, first and then with the poll.

I mean, he was quite loud outside of the courtroom, he was, he violated the gag order but I don't know, it was striking to me, I was expecting something while he was sitting there through all the proceedings and it never came. I don't think this is a, a suggestion of that he's, he's a great respecter of the rule of law or, or law but it, it just, it was a very uncanny feeling day after day to, to watch this. You know, famously blusterous man just kind of sit there and, and behave himself in a, in a strange way as odd as it is to say.

Anna Bower: Anna. Well, so I actually want to, before we go to my closing thoughts, we skipped over some-. So, I'm going to give the people what they want, Ben, which is color from the courtroom when, after Trump has been convicted on 34 felony counts for falsification of business records in the first degree. Everyone wants to know, what did his face look like?

Again, I was sitting behind him, so I just had a view of the, like, very strange hairstyle that he does. But, when he got up, he went over to his son, Eric Trump, who was there. He, I think Eric Trump was the only family member that he had that I was aware of in the room. Melania was not there. His daughters were not there. Even Don Jr. did not make it there. Of course, they didn't know when the verdict was going to be coming down, but I think that is notable. And then he went over to Eric Trump and kind of gave him a, grabbed his arm and kind of grasped his arm and, and did a kind of, you know, they had this moment of, I don't really know what it meant or what they were doing, but it, it seemed like, you know, they were trying to show some kind of solidarity between the two.

And then Donald Trump walked out of the, of courtroom 1530 for the first time as a convicted felon with his chin jutted out and his eyes narrowed and looking straight ahead. So that was the view from the seat in the courtroom, and it really was quite a moment. He usually looks around, will make eye contact with people, but-

Benjamin Wittes: Glare at people.

Anna Bower: Yeah, glare at people, but on this occasion, he looked straight ahead and, and was very I mean, there's, there's kind, you know, when you've seen Donald Trump, you know, put on his face of, you know, defiance a number of times in courtrooms, you kind of notice there's a degree of, you know, he's just normal, unhappy to be there, or he's extremely unhappy. And on this occasion, it was an extra special, you know, unhealthiness and unhappiness.

But so beyond that color stuff, final thoughts. I mean, on your question, Ben, of whether this affects the polls, something that I have to say is that I actually think it would have had this trial been televised. I think one of the, the great disa-, maybe not disappointments is the right word, but one of the reasons why people this seemingly won't have an impact much on the election is that it's kind of one of those cases where you really had to be there to understand exactly how, you know, sleazy a lot of, even if you don't agree that it's criminal, there, there was just so much sleaze that you can't leave this trial without thinking, my God, this is the guy who was running for president of the United States.

And again, that's separate from whether even you think it's criminal. And so I think that walking away from this trial, you know, Ben, you've described it as you know, the trial that America deserves or something to that effect. So I hope, hopefully I'm not putting it words in your mouth, but because it is so perfectly Donald Trump, everything about this trial. And I think that that's right. And the problem is that no one actually can, can see that because it's just. You know, me and Tyler sitting with our little computers trying to explain, trying to type as fast as we can to say what's going on. And I just don't think it comes across the same way that it did being there a day in day out and seeing the case that the prosecution was building. And again, even if you didn't think it amounted to criminal conduct, I think that you can't help but, but walk away from that thinking, wow, that is a lot of sleaze.

Benjamin Wittes: Yeah. It was all pretty gross. All right. We're going to leave it there. We will be back apparently on July 11th for a dispatch. Until then, we're going to revert to our usual schedule, which is to say the weekly Trump Trials and Tribulations. You know, we do them once a week. There's a whole lot of people watching this episode that don't tune in to the weekly episodes. You should come for the regular episodes. You like the special ones. The regular ones are even better, actually. So come for the, the weekly Trump Trials and Tribulations.

Hey, if you valued our Trump coverage, Trump Trials coverage for the New York trial, it's not over yet, because we still got the sentencing, got some other ancillary matters, we're going to have an appeal. Chip in! Support Lawfare's Trump Trials coverage. You can become a material supporter. The usual place, lawfaremedia.org/support. If you just want to give us like a tip or something, you know, chip in for this particular project, we got the Give Butter fundraiser going. You can choose your favorite Lawfare contributor and, you know, you know, keep Roger higher than Quinta, or Quinta, help her catch up with, with, with Anna, you know, or push Tyler ahead of everybody. You can do it.

Quinta Jurecic: We, we, we love all our contributors equally.

Benjamin Wittes: Yeah, we're pitting them all against each other. In the meantime from the Lawfare Hype House and the Ansel Adams Studio and the Sconce Studio we will catch you later and, you know, be great Americans.

Anna Bower: Thanks everyone.