i m paul gigot. a manhattan jury found donald trump guilty this week on all 34 counts of false iffying business records, the first time in history that a former u.s. president has been convicted of a felony. thursday afternoon s verdict marked a dramatic end to the almost 6-week trial, but trump vowed that the legal fight is not over. this was a rigged decision right from day one. with a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case, never. and we will fight for our constitution. this is far from over. paul: let s bring in jim trusty, a former federal prosecutor and former donald trump attorney. welcome, jim. good to see you again. so what do you make of this verdict? well, it s not a shock, unfortunately. i mean, this is the lawfare. it s really at a its worst with. you had a politicized prosecutor who had a picked through the trash of a case that the southern district of new york specifically rejected doing that his predecessor rejected doing, but
before this jury. paul: yeah. i just want to tug out this process point you make. are you saying that there is a potential due process of law violation here, that a because in a case like this you are required to give the defense and the jurors notice with some specificity and with some advance notice and clarify what, in fact, are the specific charges here? and i m not just talking about the baseline charge here, i m talking about the underlying theories that the prosecution offered about what a trump was trying to cover up supposedly here. is that what you re talking about? well, i m talking a little more profoundly just in terms of, you know, the criminal justice system and the need for regularity, transparency and fair process in general. but i would say you re right that this does tap into an aa pell late issue that would be appellate issue that would be probably framed in terms of due process. keep in mind, the government was
in terms of the prosecution. it s not uncommon to start out with a certain baseline charge and then you build a case more and you go back with a superseding indictment. but the particular charges against the cfo will be significant. what kind of exposure does he have? because that will determine how much incentive he has to cooperate. and from what employees of trump organization say, he was a very detailed person, just like donald trump. and in order to make a case, if there is going to be a case ultimately made against the former president, you are going to need someone who was close to the former president, had intimate conversations with him, knows where the bodies are buried, knows how the records are kept, knows where the documentation is. that certainly sounds like mr. weisselberg. so i will be particularly interested in the quality of the evidence and the nature of the charges against him. i want to read for you and the audience some new reporting
he s got a lot of shows. how many times are you going to come on and say lose weight, wear a helmet. is there any there there? you re making money and not disclosing it that would be the baseline charge. dr. oz tries to be on the up and up. you go to his website and see his trusted partners listed. that s an example of something some doctors wouldn t do to go that next step and have that relationship. you know seems to me like he s going to go on the offense here. he s been on the defense for several days. some of these doctors and physicians seem like they ve got sketchy pasts, pointing out connections and ties to the gmo industry. they seem to not like the fact that s interesting. the ten accusing him of quack medicine he s going to expose something this week about them maybe. at least some of the ten. that s what dr. oz s people are saying. some have these industry ties. they say they don t like dr. oz s stance on gmos.