MSNBC | People | Politics
Talk about a dramatic ending. Earlier this week, MSNBC announced that it was setting aside the night of June 2 for Prosecuting Donald Trump: Witness to History—an hour-long primetime special looking back at the historic criminal trial of the former U.S. president that’s been unfolding in Lower Manhattan over the last several weeks. At the time of the announcement, the jury was still deep in the deliberation process with no apparent verdict in sight.
And that uncertainty continued up until Thursday afternoon when TVNewser spoke with MSNBC legal contributor and correspondent Katie Phangfrom her vantage point at the courthouse. “We don’t know what’s going to happen,” admitted Phang, who is one of the experts that will be featured on the special alongsideRachel Maddow, Joy Reid,Chris Hayes, Lawrence O’Donnell and Andrew Weissmann.
But less than an hour after our conversation, the jury rendered its verdict on Trump: guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. That ensures that Witness to History will have a definitive ending instead of a cliffhanger—and it’s a finale that Phang says she expected all along.
Advertisem*nt
“I am not surprised by the verdict at all,” the trial attorney and host of The Katie Phang Show wrote via email after the verdict. “I knew that it was going to be an all-or-nothing proposition for the jury. And I knew that the jury would come back no later than Friday. They were off for a week before closing arguments and then they worked until 8 p.m. on Tuesday night so that they could begin deliberations early the next morning. This was a conscientious and diligent jury; they were ready to begin to consider the evidence and the law and I knew that they were not going to want to come back next week for the verdict.”
Asked if there was a specific moment where she knew the prosecution had the case sewn up, Phang points to the defense team’s decision to call former federal prosecutor Robert Costello as their last witness. “Costello’s testimony and demeanor were so poor that it left the jury with a bad taste in their mouths,” she notes. “Costello was disrespectful to the prosecutor and to the judge and the jury saw that with their own eyes. Costello’s testimony actually supported Michael Cohen’s testimony that Costello was not really working in Cohen’s best interests and was really working to protect Donald Trump.”
Audiences can tune in at 9 p.m. ET on June 2 to re-experience the full arc of the Trump Trial, from the opening arguments to the historic verdict. We spoke with Phang about what it was like being an eyewitness to an event that we’ll be talking about for decades to come.
Witness to History airs June 2 on MSNBC. (Courtesy MSNBC)
(This interview has been edited for length and clarity)
As Doctor Strange would say, “We’re in the endgame now.” Looking back on the entirety of the trial, what has the experience of covering it been like for you?
I’m used to these kinds of trials from being a lawyer, but it’s been a completely different experience covering it as a journalist and analyst here at MSNBC. It’s been a wild ride and I want to remind people that this thing was supposed to be longer! The fact that we’re at this point is a good sign that the process worked. It goes to show that the trial ran pretty efficiently and that’s in large part to the judge, Supreme Court JusticeJuan Merchan.
What would your “How It Started/How It’s Going” meme-friendly recap of the trial look like?
Oh, it’s totally the person who’s copacetic and blissful-looking next to the the person who’s totally hair on fire because they’re being asked, “Are you at the courthouse? Where are you?!” [Laughs] But that’s the reason why I was so happy to be a part of this primetime special, because it’s really geared towards providing viewers with the inside baseball of what it was like to be there in the courtroom. Because there were no cameras and no audio allowed in the courtroom, there’s this entire swath of America that has been relying upon us to give them the details in an accurate, responsible and respectful way. People will tune in and get a flavor for what it was like for all of us to be on the inside.
What are the some of the big themes you’re planning to highlight in the Witness to History special?
Obviously everybody has the understanding that this is an unprecedented moment in history—we’ve used that adjective a lot lately, but it really does apply here. This is the first criminal trial of a former president of the United States, and understanding that that has a certain novelty in and of itself. But there’s also a solemnity to it because of what’s at stake. That’s why we have this incredibly deep bench of legal analysts at the network, people with exceptional experience. We’ve tried these cases and have been in courtrooms, so we know what the energy is like and what the issues are and are able to distill all of that for viewers. The biggest complement I can receive from somebody is that I’ve explained the law in a way that they understand.
What are some of the moments from observing the trial that have stayed with you?
This is kind of an unavoidable thing to say, but seeing Donald Trump sitting there at the defense table has been wild, as is the way he interacts with his lawyers or the judge and how he’s being perceived. Remember, he’s not able to talk to the jury and so they’re watching him as if they’re in a fishbowl because he’s sitting there tethered to the table.
What’s also been memorable is how we’ve been talking about Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen for years and we got to see them take the stand, take the oath and testify. It’s amazing to me that it’s only taken a year since [Manhattan district attorney]Alan Bragg brought the indictment. That’s sounds like a long time to some people, but having had experience in this, it’s pretty fast! That’s really something that’s stuck with me.
We know that Cohen’s time on the stand got pretty contentious. Is that another memorable moment for you?
It’s funny, the contentious back and forth between him and [Trump’s lawyer] Todd Blanche was something that we all paid attention to. But for me, the most memorable thing about Cohen was how relatable he came across to the jury. He would give these kind of quippy one-liners and you saw some of the the jury chuckle, not because they were trying to make fun of Trump or anybody else, but because of the humanity that’s going on between the defendant, prosecutor and witness. These are all people at the end of the day, and that undercurrent of humanity was fascinating to watch and also dive into in this primetime special in terms of whose lives are directly happened by what happens in the case.
Did you notice anything interesting about the jury when you looked at them during the trial?
They all deserve awards for being poker-faced! [Laughs] They’ve been really inscrutable, and that’s good. Sometimes you would see flashes of someone maybe looking a little bored or something, but that makes sense. It’s uncomfortable to sit there and after you’ve been there for awhile, you want to get to a break. But generally, they were incredibly attentive and cared about what was happening. As somebody who has tried cases, that’s what you want.
You mentioned wanting viewers to understand what the trial was like via the special. It’s sometimes seemed like the general public wasn’t necessarily tuned-in to the case as it was unfolding. Did you have that sense as well?
I grew up with the O.J. Simpson trial, where everybody tuned in to watch. But that was also because we had a window into the trail provided by the lens of a camera and audio. I’ve actually been surprised by the level of attention and involvement that people have shown about the Trump trial even without those things. And as we’ve gotten closer to the culmination of things, people are more and more in tune with what’s going on. Depending on who you are, you’re paying attention for different reasons and that’s why the responsibility has fallen on myself and my fellow legal analysts to be a part of the coverage. A lot of people have never been in court before, and when you hear from all of us it’s a really great way of bringing that experience to viewers.
Taking the long view, how do you think we’re going to look back on this trial years or even decades from now?
I think people will look back and say—even begrudgingly—that the system worked as it was supposed to work. This was a trial of a criminal defendant who happened to be the 45th president of the United States. If people are able to remain objective, they will say that the judge and the New York court system created the proper environment for this case to go to trial and it began and concluded in a just and proper way.
Trump is currently facing three other criminal trials. Should they go forward this year, are there lessons you learned from covering this trial that you’d apply to covering those cases?
Working with MSNBC, I’ve already had the privilege of being able to go to Fulton County for the Georgia [racketeering] case, to Florida for the classified documents case and the Supreme Court to cover the immunity arguments in the Washington, D.C. election interference case. They’ve all been so different and varied, but one of the biggest and best takeaways from having covered this trial is continuing to learn how to do a better job of distilling the information in a way that’s informative and accurate, but still entertaining.
Not that we’re making light of what is going on, because these are obviously important cases! But people tune in to MSNBC because they want to have the feeling that they are a part of this experience and we want to make sure this isn’t a two-dimensional experience for them. In order to do that, we’re going to give you a variety of voices from varied backgrounds so anybody that tunes in feels like they got a flavor of what happened.
Prosecuting Donald Trump: Witness to History premieres June 2 at 9 p.m. on MSNBC
