JOHN. >> John: NATE FOY WITH THE LATEST FOR US. THANK YOU SO MUCH. JONATHAN TURLEY JOINS US AGAIN, THIS TIME IN PERSON. IT'S GOOD TO SEE HER SMILING FACE, PROFESSOR. WE WENT OVER THIS LAST HOUR. WE MAY HAVE AN ENTIRELY NEW AUDIENCE THIS HOUR, SO GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE PRUDENCE OF WHAT THE JUDGE DID IN THIS CASE. >> WELL, IT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION, BECAUSE JUDGE MERCHAN MIGHT HAVE ENDED UP NOT JUST THE JUDGE WHO IMPRISONED DONALD TRUMP. HE COULD HAVE BEEN THE JUDGE THAT REELECTED DONALD TRUMP. IF HE ACTUALLY DID IMPOSE JAIL, AS KARL ROVE NOTED, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN JUST THE CATALYST NEEDED TO PUT TRUMP OVER THE TOP. THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW CURIOUS THIS CALENDAR IS FOR ANY TYPE OF SENTENCING. IT ALSO MEANS THAT, BECAUSE OF THE DATES SELECTED HERE, THAT THE ELECTION IS GOING TO HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON SENTENCING. IF DONALD TRUMP IS REELECTED AS PRESIDENT, THEN IT SEEMS VERY UNLIKELY THAT MERCHAN WOULD SENTENCE HIM TO JAIL. IT IS ALSO UNLIKELY THAT HE COULD SUCCEED IN KEEPING HIM IN JAIL BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT WITH HIS PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES. IF TRUMP LOSES THE ELECTION, THEN INDEED THAT MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR MERCHAN TO DO PRECISELY THAT. SO THE ELECTION HAS REALLY GROWN IN CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF THE SENTENCING. BUT KEEP IN MIND, WHATEVER MERCHAN DOES, IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT HE PREVIOUSLY DID IN THIS CASE. I THINK THAT HE HAS COMMITTED LAYERS OF REVERSIBLE ERROR. I THINK THERE WAS EVIDENCE AT HIS TRIAL THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD VIEW AS PRIVILEGED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE JURY. SO THERE IS A LONG RUNWAY BETWEEN HERE AND THERE WHEN IT COMES TO ANY JAIL SENTENCE. >> WE ARE GETTING BRAND-NEW REACTION THROUGH OUR OWN BROOKE SINGMAN HERE WHO JUST SPOKE TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT FOLLOWING THE JUDGE'S DECISION. HE TELLS HER THE CASE WAS DELAYED BECAUSE EVERYONE REALIZES THERE WAS NO CASE, AND I DID NOTHING WRONG, HE SAYS. HE ALSO ADDS IT IS A CASE THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BROUGHT, JONATHAN. THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT AND SO DOES EVERY LEGAL SCHOLAR THAT HAS LOOKED AT IT AND STUDIED IT. I GREATLY RESPECT THE WORDS BEING USED IN THE DECISION BECAUSE THERE SHOULD BE NO "IF NECESSARY." THE CASE SHOULD BE DEAD, SAYS THE FORMER PRESIDENT AND BRAND-NEW REMARKS TO FOX. JONATHAN? >> I CERTAINLY AGREE THIS CASE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT. I THINK THE FORMER PRESIDENT IS CORRECT, THIS IS A POLITICAL CASE BASED ON RATHER NOVEL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW. I'M NOT TOO SURE THOSE INTERPRETATIONS WILL WITHSTAND REVIEW. BUT I THINK THE CASE IS OVERTLY POLITICAL. IT WAS THE WEAKEST OF THE CASES, IN MY VIEW, TO GO FORWARD. SO I BELIEVE THE FORMER PRESIDENT IS RIGHT ON THAT FRONT. THE QUESTION NOW IS HOW THESE APPEALS WILL PLAY OUT. THE PRESIDENT HAS A RATHER TARGET-RICH ENVIRONMENT WITH THIS TRIAL. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS HERE THAT I THINK IT COULD BE REVERSIBLE. IN SOME RESPECTS, I EXPECT PEOPLE IN THE TRUMP CAMP ALMOST QUIETLY HOPE THAT MERCHAN WOULD CONTINUE HIS RECORD IN THE CASE. MERCHAN WAS QUITE ONE-SIDED IN HIS RULINGS. I SAT IN THAT COURTROOM AND I WAS ASTONISHED BY HOW HE CONSISTENTLY RULED AGAINST THE TRUMP TEAM, EVEN WHEN, IN MY VIEW, THEY WERE CLEARLY CORRECT AND THE MOTIONS THEY WERE MAKING. >> John: BUT STILL, YOU'VE GOT A UNANIMOUS DECISION FROM 12 JURORS. MAYBE NOT ON THE UNDERLYING PREDICATE CRIME, BUT ON THE OVERALL CRIME, YOU'VE GOT A UNANIMOUS DECISION. SO THEY SEEM TO AGREE WITH WHAT THE PROSECUTION WAS SELLING. >> I THINK IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WITH A MENDED THEIR RULING ON. I HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE JURORS, CRITICAL OF THE JUDGE. HE TOLD THE JURORS THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO AGREE WITH WHAT OCCURRED IN THE CASE. HE GAVE THEM VARIOUS POSSIBLE REASONS WHY ACTS WERE COMMITTED, AND HE DIDN'T EVEN FORCE THEM TO RECORD HOW THEY VOTED ON WHAT REALLY OCCURRED. ALL OF THAT IS PART OF THE NOVELTY, IN MY VIEW, OF THIS CASE THAT SHOULD BE REVIEWED. >> John: THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS MAKING, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE HAD UNANIMITY ON THE UNDERLYING PREDICATE CRIME LIKE THEY DID IN THE OVERALL ASPECT OF THE CASE. BUT YOU UNDERSTAND POLITICS AS WELL AS YOU UNDERSTAND THE LAW. NOW THAT THIS IS OFF THE TABLE, THERE WILL BE NO SENTENCING BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER 5TH. THE VOTING WAS SUPPOSED TO START IN NORTH CAROLINA, THAT BECAUSE OF A LAWSUIT THAT BOBBY KENNEDY FILED TO GET HIS NAME OFF THE BALLOT, THEY HAVE DELAYED SETTING UP THOSE BALLADS ARE LETTING PEOPLE VOTE UNTIL TIME TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FUTURE. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT'S GOING TO BE. BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK NOW IS THE OVERALL EFFECT ON THE ELECTION, IF THERE IS ANY AT ALL? >> FIRST OF ALL, THESE BALLOT FIGHTS ARE RATHER CURIOUS. THE MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE PREVIOUSLY TRIED TO GET A POPULAR CANDIDATE OFF THE BALLOT, AND SHE IS NOW FIGHTING TO KEEP A NONEXISTENT CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT, BECAUSE -- MANY PEOPLE VIEW THIS AS A RATHER POLITICAL AGENDA TO PULL AWAY VOTES FROM THE FORMER PRESIDENT. IN NORTH CAROLINA THEY SAID THEY COULD SWITCH BALLOTS BUT IT MIGHT TAKE A LEAK. WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE THAN THAT IN LITIGATION. SO THERE IS A LOT OF QUESTION AS TO WHY THESE DEMOCRATIC SECRETARIES OF STATE ARE CLINGING ONTO KENNEDY, TO KEEP THEM ON THESE BALLOTS IN VERY CLOSE STATES. THIS RULING IS GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT IN THE SENSE THAT MANY PEOPLE I THINK CORRECTLY VIEW NEW YORK AS LAWFARE, CORRECTLY VIEW THIS AS A POLITICAL CASE. ANY SENTENCING THAT MERCHAN WOULD HAVE COME DOWN WITH I THINK WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN PARTICULARLY WELCOMED BY MOST OF THE PUBLIC. IT WOULD HAVE REMINDED THEM OF THIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT. SO IN SOME WAYS I THINK THE HARRIS CAMPAIGN IS PROBABLY CELEBRATING THAT THEY WON'T HAVE THAT ATTENTION ON THE MANHATTAN CASE. >> Sandra: REALLY SOMETHING HERE. JUST LOOKING FOR MORE OUT OF THE LETTER ITSELF, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CASE GOING FORWARD. JONATHAN, I'M SURE YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT BY NOW, BUT USING THE WORDS AND PHRASES LIKE "WANTED TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF, HOWEVER UNWARRANTED," THAT THIS HAD BEEN AFFECTED BY THE ELECTION, THAT IS INTERESTING, RIGHT? AND NOT LIKE WE HAVE HEARD THAT FROM THIS JUDGE BEFORE. >> [LAUGHS] NO. I MEAN, I SUPPORT -- YOU KNOW, I WAS NOT ONE OF THOSE PILING ON MERCHAN, THAT I HAVE TO SAY, AFTER SITTING IN HIS COURTROOM, I WAS VERY SURPRISED IN WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A ONE-SIDED APPROACH TO THAT TRIAL. IT REMINDED ME OF AN OLD JUDGE THESE TO SAY HIS DEFENSE WILL REPRESENT THE CASE AND THEN SAY, ARE THE PROSECUTORS READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE? THERE WAS A LACK OF BALANCE THERE. WE HAVE NOT HEARD THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE FROM MERCHAN. HE REFUSED TO DO THINGS DURING THE TRIAL THAT COULD HAVE ACCOMMODATED THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE TRIAL WAS OCCURRING, INCLUDING A GAG ORDER THAT I THINK WAS EXCESSIVE. SOME IRONY, OF COURSE, THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S POLLS WENT UP WHEN HE WAS GAGGED, PARTIALLY BECAUSE PEOPLE SAW THE UNFAIRNESS AND PARTIALLY BECAUSE HE STAYED ON SCRIPT. BUT THAT MAY HAVE WEIGHED IN ALL OF THIS. MERCHAN WITNESSED HOW HIS CONDUCT AT THE TRIAL, THE TRIAL ITSELF WORKED IN TRUMP'S FAVOR. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING IN COMPARISON TO WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF HE SENTENCED TRUMP TO HOME CONFINEMENT, OR TO JAIL. I THINK MERCHAN WAS AWARE THAT. >> John: YOU KNOW, IT'S FUNNY, SO MANY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THIS VERDICT WAS HEADED UP. IT IT SO FAR IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR YOU ALMOST HAVE TO REMIND YOURSELF OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE TRIAL. BUT HERE'S WHAT A SPOKESPERSON FOR ALVIN BRAGG'S OFFICE SAID. "A JURY OF 12 NEW YORKERS SWIFTLY AND UNANIMOUSLY CONVICTED FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP. THEY STAND READY FOR SENTENCING ON THE NEW DATE SET BY THE COURT." OF COURSE THE NEW DATE IS THE NEW DATE FOR THE MOMENT, BUT THAT COULD CHANGE, TOO. >> IT CAN. REMEMBER, THERE ARE A LOT OF APPEALS THAT ARE GOING FORWARD. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON IMMUNITY DOES HIT THIS CASE. IT IS TRUE THAT MUCH OF THE CONDUCT IN THIS CASE DID NOT INVOLVE THE PRESIDENT WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE, BUT SOME DID. IN FACT, THE CRITICAL PAYMENTS THAT OCCURRED OCCURRED WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE. THE PROSECUTORS CAME BACK TO THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT HIS MULTITASKING, PAYING THESE THINGS OFF WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE TESTIMONY OF HOPE HICKS. ALL OF THAT CAN CONTAMINATE THE TRIAL. ALL OF OUR EXPECTATIONS IS THAT MERCHAN IS THE LEAST LIKELY JUDGE TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I CAN'T REALLY UNRAVEL ALL OF THAT. LET'S HAVE A NEW TRIAL. BUT HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A VERY CONVINCING CASE FOR THE APPELLATE COURT, BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT MADE VERY CLEAR THAT THEY WANTED BREATHING ROOM FOR PRESIDENTS. THEY DID NOT WANT THESE TO BE CLOSE QUESTIONS AS TO WHEN YOUR FORMER AIDES COULD POP UP IN COURT AND TESTIFY AGAINST YOU IN CASES LIKE THIS.