The Chris Cuomo Project - BREAKING: Chris Cuomo REACTS to the Trump Guilty verdict

Episode Date: May 30, 2024

Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 counts in the New York hush money case, making him the first former president to be convicted of felony crimes. Chris Cuomo breaks down what led the jury to convict and potential consequences for Trump’s political future, including the possibility of appeals and how this conviction could impact the 2024 race. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The news just broke Donald Trump guilty in New York. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to The Chris Cuomo Project. Now that we know the outcome of the Trump trial, what does it mean? Okay, we got to look at it through the eyes of the law, the policy that's supposedly being served here, and then of course, the politics. All right? That's what matters. I'm Chris Cuomo here for you.

Let's get after it at the Chris Cuomo podcast. Now, Trump was convicted. Why? Because simply stated, he did it. What was the it? This was the case against him, not paying off a woman, a man, a porn star, a playmate. It doesn't matter.

The transaction itself, the behavior, the decision was not on trial. I know it seems like it was, especially on social media, but remember, that is the for dummies version of reality, what's happening on social media. Everybody who's driving you in a direction is getting paid for it. You really need to catch on.

You wanna feel that way about the media in the large sense? Okay, fine. Do I agree? No, I think it's case by case, but you do you. It's really true on social media. These people will talk about how something got them millions of views, because that's the sole commodity.

They don't care what it is. As long as they're getting the views and feeding the algorithms, they're gonna get paid. They're gonna get more subscribers. They're gonna get more ad dollars. Now you'll say, well, that's the same way with media. No, not exactly. Not exactly.

It's not as direct. It's not as intentional. It's not as driven. I'm telling you, I've been in the business a long time. Rarely, rarely do you meet people who are journalists who are thinking about the profitability of their work. They should probably be doing it more, to be honest. Sometimes on the production side,

you'll hear people saying that, but on social media, it is a commanding and leading focus, okay? Is this going to get me paid? And that's why they love it when someone like me with a big platform responds, because they want to feed off that. They want fights. They want beef. So just be aware, okay? And I'm giving you this explanation because it's going to feed in to how the outcomes to the Trump trial will be processed now He was on trial Not for what he did But for the cover-up, you know the old expression. It's not the crime. It's the cover-up. Okay, the crime here

Wasn't paying the women It was allowing the money that was used to pay the women to be seen or booked as a campaign contribution. Now, why did that happen? Primarily, because Michael Cohen is a dope. That's why. Michael Cohen came up with this convoluted construct of how to pay these women. That very significant, significant fact was different than the way they had paid people in the past. Because this catch and kill with the National Enquirer had been going on for a while. So then why didn't they just put this through the same shoot that they did in the other ones?

Ah. That was an element for the prosecution of you did it differently because you were doing it differently and you were doing it this time to protect the campaign and you're doing it this time through the campaign. So the way that you did it, the intentionality, the LLC, the HELOC, the home equity line of credit, having him use his own personal money, booking it as a contribution, it was all part of the plan to protect the campaign for president. Okay, this was Michael Cohen's idea.

This was not Trump's idea. How do we know? Because on the tape, which I got as a reporter at CNN, that validated the reality that Donald Trump knew about the payments, because Donald Trump had lied to you, of course, not that you care, not that you care, right? I mean, this is the only man that all you guys who are COVID tyranny people, anti-vax people, the only person who gets a pass is the guy who brought us the vaccine. Isn't that interesting?

What does that show you? There are agendas here. It's not as pure as my body, my choice, and whether or not we're doing what's best for the health of our society. Their political agenda is just like in everything else. So Trump may get a pass, but not in this case with the jury. Why? Because he knew and he lied about knowing. How do we know? Because of the tape.

He's talking to Michael Cohen about this transaction. Now what he's not doing with Michael Cohen is saying how to do the payment. He says to Michael Cohen, cash, cash, we'll pay cash. Cohen says, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, to pay the women. Not a moral issue, okay? Shouldn't be a moral issue. Our politics really shouldn't be based on Picadillo's. Look, look, if you want them to be, that's fine. You can base your vote on whatever you want. But if you want to go down the road of moral agents, moral leadership, what kinds of men and women are we putting out there for ourselves?

Well, we're so far away from that. I mean, Donald Trump is dominant in the party that used to be the character counts party. You can't make a case that the guy has good character to a reasonable audience. No way. No way. Only for those who are in with him because of the identity dynamic of politics. They're the only ones that are going to give Trump a passing grade on character because they'll give him a passing grade on

everything because they're just moving them along because he represents their identity. The question was, did Trump know and therefore violate campaign finance law by hiding the payment to the women as a campaign donation? Now, if he had just said, Michael Cohen, 130 grand for paying off women, would he have broken the law? No. He can give you an in-kind contribution for whatever it is. And Donald Trump was also aware, as was Michael Cohen, that you got to be careful with in-kind donations.

Why? Because the FEC had come after both of them in the past. Wait, no, they didn't. No, this is it, you're wrong. No, you're wrong. They had gone after them in the past, not for Trump paying off women, but for what Trump had done

as a campaign contribution to others, how it had been booked, had been an arguable violation of the FEC code. So they were aware that in-kind donations get checked. And yet they did it again here. Did he know? Yeah, that's what all the counts are about, 34 or whatever it was.

It wasn't about separate crimes. It was all of the signing and the transactions of the bookkeeping of this transaction. Now you can argue that they shouldn't have been seen as separate counts, whatever, but that's how you know that he knew. Now I think that was still the critical question for the jury of, did he really know

that this was being done through the campaign structure and to make it that, or was he just a functionary signing what he's told to sign, signing a million things and distracted by everything else and not really running shit the way he was suggested that he was. Maybe, but a conviction here is because he did it.

It's a crime to cover what a contribution to a campaign was for, and they did that. So now what? Well, you got to believe he's going to appeal. Do they have issues that can be appealed? Yes. Will they be successful? Unlikely. But does it matter? Yes. Why? Because this is about time as much as it's about anything else. And if he wins the election, even though this is a state case, he cannot pardon himself out of this. I don't know why people keep saying that.

A president has no precedent for pardoning a state crime. Only federal crimes. This is a state crime. Only federal crimes. This is a state crime. So there is no precedent for pardoning. So I don't know why people keep putting that out there as a possibility. It doesn't exist. But if he's president, they're not going to let him deal with any legal matters. I really believe that they're going to put it all on hold.

Who's they? I don't know. I mean, the powers that be, the courts, whatever. Why? Because the Commonwealth, the commonweal, our interests are more important than this. So it's going to be put on hold. If he loses, well, then he's going to go through a sentencing. The big question is, does this judge put him in jail? I can see this going either way and I'll tell you why.

This is not hedging by the way. I don't like when people, all right fine fine, I'll indulge you. They don't think he gets put in jail. Now, I don't know that I'm gonna be right about this. Why? Because this judge and the prosecution painted themselves into a corner with how seriously they took this. They made this a felony.

This was really a misdemeanor. This judge has treated it very seriously all along and not just because it was their job. So, and I'm not saying that they were politically biased, I'm saying that they've taken this as a major offense, what was being done here. Do I agree with that? No, not as a policy proposition.

Why? Because this isn't the problem with campaign finance. The problem with campaign finance is not knowing who's given the money. Dark money, legal money, is the problem with campaign finance. You shouldn't be able to have it. We should limit the money that goes into campaigns. It should have never been seen as political speech, which it is under the Supreme Court precedent. And until they

change that case, money is speech and corporations and PACs can give as much as they want. And it totally corrupts our system. Really does, just feeds the two party battle to the bottom. That's all it is. Add dollars, add dollars, add dollars, smothering you in negativity. So this judge has made it a really big deal. How does he justify no time? You look under the parameters of sentencing

and the judge has discretion to do it. Prosecution is going to ask for time. Why? If Alvin Bragg doesn't ask for time, then the conviction means nothing. And he campaigned on getting Trump, so he's going to have to ask for time. Now, politically, what does that do? Well, it doesn't help anything. Okay?

Now, interesting question. Can he still run and serve if he's in jail? I don't know, we don't have any law on this. There's no restriction to him running. Isn't it interesting that we thought through, or the founders thought through, that if you are in prison, if you're a felon, you can't vote in most places,

but you can run and win and I guess serve, but not vote. So that's something we will have to deal with here in terms of what happens if a convicted felon who's been sentenced or is awaiting sentencing wins an election. I guess we're going to live through it together now. Bizarre. One other indication of how terrible our choices were in this election.

Another indication for people on the right of deep state machinery and out to get Trump. And again, I think these are all articles of convenience. The guy did what he was accused of. Should it have been prosecuted? I say no. But here we are. articles of convenience. The guy did what he was accused of. Should it have been prosecuted? I say no. But here we are. Here we are.

Politically, it's just gonna add more fuel to the fire. But it does not fundamentally change things as far as I can see, because there's no real law or precedent on the books for someone who wants to be president having just been convicted of a crime. I guess he can't vote for himself. Hey, if the conviction is upheld

by the time that the election comes, I guess we'll have this really pathetic situation where somebody running for president can't vote for themselves. Why not? Now, the big point for me to argue here with and for you is, was this the right outcome? Look, if this were a law school exam, I think it's not a shock that the guy is convicted. Do I think this is good policy?

I can argue it either way. Because he did what the law is trying to prevent, but the reason that it's trying to prevent this kind of behavior and non-disclosure, I don't believe is satisfied with this case. This isn't about liking Trump or giving Trump a pass or any of that. Not for me. Okay? I am not an anti-Trump or I don't hate the guy. I wouldn't vote for him. I believe you should be open to voting for him. Well, how can those two things be true? Because you're not me. That's why I believe he's disqualified himself from leadership. But that doesn't mean you should. You should be open to your choices. That's the only advice I really should be able to give you. Be open.

And look, I'll help you understand what the choices are. I'll make arguments for you that you can then use as food for thought for your own processing of the same. But I don't believe that the reason they passed these laws and made it a felony in exaggerated circumstances as was done by the prosecutor here to catch guys like Trump for doing what he did. Politically, this is all bad. It's all bad. It's just going to stoke the fringe. It's going to stoke the fires of prejudice against the institutions of our democracy.

It's going to heat up the hostility in the election. It's going to heat up the motivations to go after Biden and to go after people on the other side. It's just all bad. Now the counter is, what are you talking about? We've shown that no one is above the law. What a beautiful example. Look, I don't know that we needed that instruction

in this way, okay? To me, no one is above the law really is a set of equities that we need to focus on on the lower socioeconomic levels. To me, the biggest absurdity of this whole situation was Trump waking up to the idea that justice isn't always fair, and that justice always isn't justice in that case, and that there can be a different tiered system, different levels of analysis based on how the system sees you. This is the guy who never saw

a cop use of force or abuse of force that he didn't like. Now he wants to relate to the black man and say, I know how you feel brother. This is a two tiered system. That to me was completely absurd. And people saying, oh, see now maybe black people will vote for him because no, they know that he's not talking about them. He's talking about himself, like everything else.

So I just don't know what policy it serves. I don't know how it helps anything. It doesn't show me that the system works no matter who you are. To me, that's the example I want to see by how people who are not empowered, who don't have a huge following behind them to threaten the arbiters and the gatekeepers of our system. How do those people get treated? That's the measure of the system, how the least of us get processed. Not the guy with the most money, the most access,

the most power. That's not how you test your system, I don't think. So I don't know how this makes anything better. I don't even think it affects his chances of winning. As weird as it is about whether or not he can serve because people who want to vote for him, and now maybe some who have been added to those ranks by their feelings that the system was twisted to get them.

So I don't know that this has any net benefit for his opponents. I think that it is just a net negative for all of us. And one more reason that our system has to change. Because in a battle to the bottom, everything is being played to advantage all the time. And that's all these two parties are about. They're just about advantaging their own situation by making the other side appear worse. appear worse. So there you have it, Donald Trump found guilty by the jury in New York.

And now we'll have to see what happens next in terms of appeals, sentencing, delay of the sentencing, until the election, more litigation to come. And this vexing question of what happens if he's in jail for the election, it's interesting to speculate about. It's going to get a lot of tongues wagging. It's going to make a lot of people money on social media. But will it come to pass? I don't think so.

Thank you for subscribing, following. It's always good to have you at the Chris Cuomo Project. Be a free agent. That's why I wear the gear. Be independent. Be a critical thinker. Look where the party system has gotten us. I'll see you on News Nation, 8 and 11 P Eastern, every weekday night.

Let's get after it.