The Fill the Gap Podcast explores various topics and aims to bridge gaps in knowledge and understanding. A recent episode discusses public opinion on the verdict of a trial involving Donald Trump. While 45% believe the verdict was politically motivated, over half of independent voters think the jury reached the right conclusion and believe it should end Trump's 2024 campaign. Among those who have unfavorable opinions of both Trump and President Biden, a majority believe the verdict was correct and that Trump's campaign should end. The podcast also highlights the significance of voters who are undecided and how their opinions may shape the outcome of the election. It is mentioned that Trump cannot afford to lose their support. However, it is cautioned that these snapshot polls may not accurately represent long-term opinions, as history has shown that public sentiment can change. The podcast also discusses the political implications of the verdict and how Democrats and Republicans may re
Welcome to the Fill the Gap Podcast, where we dive into the spaces between the known and the unknown, exploring a vast array of topics from the everyday to the extraordinary. Join us as we embark on a journey of discovery, bridging the gaps in our knowledge and understanding, one episode at a time. Whether you're a curious mind or an avid learner, this is the place to fill the gaps in your mental library. So tune in, get comfortable, and let's uncover the mysteries that lie just beyond our reach.
This is Fill the Gap, where curiosity meets insight. This is The Verdict Conspiracy on Fill the Gap Podcast. Here we go. Although 45% say the verdict was politically motivated, more than half of all independents, 52%, believe the jury reached the right conclusion and think it should end Donald Trump's 2024 campaign. Those numbers are even higher among voters with unfavorable opinions of both Trump and President Joe Biden, those so-called double haters. Among that group, 65% say the verdict was correct, and 67% say it should end Trump's bid for the White House.
Let's keep this up for a second. I agree with Donald Trump, how he came in on the show here. Yeah, so Sam Stein, we're looking at this double haters. Everybody's talking about the double haters, people that don't like Biden, people that don't like Trump. It's actually, if you dig into that, they are, of course, pollsters say they're the most important group. If you dig into it, you know, you actually get a lot of hated, a lot of animosity towards Donald Trump.
And with Joe Biden, it's like, ah, he's too old. He's all right. He's a good guy. Too old. Don't want him in there. So double haters actually is a bit of a misnomer, but they always seem to break overwhelmingly Biden's way. And here we see it again. 67% of this undecided group that's going to determine the outcome of the election think that the convictions should end Donald Trump's campaign. What say you, Mr. Stein? Well, I think it's an alarming number.
If you're Donald Trump, obviously, you can't afford to bleed that type of support anywhere. But that block in particular, you need to break to use specifically. Right. I mean, he's going to win his voters. We know that. What he really needs in this election is those people who are on the fence, maybe a little bit wary of Joe Biden breaking all the way his way. That said, I'm going to hold my judgments for polls that are not snapshot polls.
That's right after the verdict. People may be reacting to the news. We're also five months out, as Jonathan pointed out, rightfully at the top of this, we have a lengthy history of people circling back towards Trump after egregious, seemingly crippling political moments. January 6th top among them. So let's wait and see and be sober about these poll numbers. I will say, look, it obviously doesn't benefit Donald Trump to have 34 guilty counts against him. It's not something that any candidate would want.
I think he's trying to turn it into some sort of political favor. I don't think it's ignorance that other Republicans are comparing it to the show trials of the Stalin era. I think they know exactly what they're doing. They're not ignorant of it. They're trying to discredit the justice system because that's the card that they have to play here. The question, Joe, that you raised is, will the public or at least will a good portion of the public look at that and say, you know what? I'm all for it.
Or will they say, you know what? Our foundational system of government and the rule of law is too important. And I was telling to me that when Joe Biden came out and offered his first remarks on the trial last week, he did not go off to the substance of the verdict. No one expected him to do that. What he did is he got really heated about the efforts of by Republicans to undermine faith in the rule of law.
And I think that's where he wants to point his anger. And that's the case he wants to make heading into the election. And the politics of this are going to be so fascinating because, yes, there's polling that shows that there is a percentage of Republicans who won't vote for Trump. At least they say they won't vote for Trump now that he's a convicted felon. But we're seeing the vast majority of the GOP in a frenzy and repeating Trump talking points, really trying to create an echo chamber about how unfair this verdict was.
Now, let's see what Democrats do. We knew the president. That was the right thing to do. Most people believe his first remarks simply about we need to respect the process. But now what do fellow Democrats do? What do what does the campaign do? And eventually, what does the president himself do in terms of driving home this conviction, as example, and why Donald Trump is not fit for office? So now let's turn to the legal part of this and bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin.
Lisa, I hope we've had a chance to catch your breath after such a frenzied stretch. And we are a couple of days out from the verdict now. Any sort of additional reactions now that you've had time to sit with this as to how it went down? And give us your latest thoughts as to what the prosecution may seek in terms of penalty. Let's start there. I think that the prosecution, notwithstanding Donald Trump's efforts to say that the people won't stand for his serving any jail time, I would be very surprised that the Manhattan DA's office doesn't seek some form of jail time here.
And the reason is for two reasons, John. One is the severity of the conduct. We're talking about 34 counts, each of which could be punished by up to four years. Of course, they're not going to seek four years for each of these counts. Rather, they'd ask for some sort of concurrent sentence where they're all grouped together. But it's hard for me to imagine that given the multiplicity of counts here, they're not going to seek some jail time.
The other major factor, however, is the lack of remorse shown by the defendant. Not only do we have a defendant who's already been found in criminal contempt ten times, but he continues to say things about the verdict, about the process, about participants in the process who are covered by the gag order in theoretical violations of that gag order that haven't been brought to Justice Murshan's attention. That could be a part of any sentencing procedure when he goes out and says, for example, that this is all a Biden administration led cabal because one of the prosecutors here happened to have served in the Biden Department of Justice.
That's the only connection at all that they can draw. That is a person who shows no remorse, a person who says the process is rigged, that the judge is corrupt, that the district attorney didn't want to bring this case but only did so under political pressure. That is a person who doesn't believe that they did anything wrong, as he continues to say, and I expect that to play a major factor in his sentencing. You know, Lisa, one of the questions that I've had is, obviously we have no precedent for a former sitting president to be convicted of a felony on 34 counts.
At the same time, if you're the judge, Judge Murshan must be thinking, okay, you know, I have to look at precedent in terms of sentencing. What is fair? And so is there, are there high profile cases that you think he may be looking at? Are there, you know, other examples that we can look to to say, well, this might be what it looks like? I mean, what would be fair? There's no precedent. We're just kind of running blind here.
Judge Murshan is a person who historically has not been particularly lenient with white collar defenders. It is also not the case, despite what Trump and his allies continue to say, that falsification of business records as a felony is not a traditionally prosecuted crime in Manhattan. In fact, it gets prosecuted all the time. What might be novel here is the combination of falsification of business records and an election law conspiracy under state law. It's New York election law 17-152.
That's the crime that Trump says, nobody had any idea what I was being accused of. That's not true at all. But again, if you're looking historically at, have people committed falsification of business records that get bumped up to a felony because there is an underlying crime that they either intended to commit or conceal, that happens all the time in Manhattan. And Justice Murshan will take that into consideration. All right, there you have it. The verdict conspiracy.
Verdict is out. On the public opinion side about the conviction. November will be the real test. Build the Gap podcast with Justice Murshan. Build the Gap. Have a great day. Love, peace, joy and happiness.
