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 he revived these misdemeanors with three inventive ways of charging them, got a manhattan jury pool, a manhattan jury selected and very favorable jury instructions. so by the time all of that kind of crescendoed at the end of the week, i wasn't shocked. once you heard there was a verdict, it was pretty clear that it was probably going to be a conviction. paul: so, i mean, do you think this was a foregone conclusion, or were there steps that the defense could have taken that would have been better? >> well, i mean, there's always room, you know, to do the armchair quarterback at the expense to of fellow lawyers. i think that the defense strategy overall was the right one which was to focus on the credibility of michael cohen, don't pick fights with other witnesses that are basically either friendly or not hurting you and draw all of the jury's attention to the idea that you can't possibly convict anybody no matter what your thoughts are about that person it's based on the word of one michael cohen. so i don't begrudge that strategy. i think they stuck to that reasonably well, although they got a little distracted when they went into stormy daniels' testimony and a little bit of a distraction, a little bit of forest being lost through the trees during closing argument. but that's kind of natural. closing argument on these high profile cases, the attorneys tend to think they've got to get every vivid detail in front of the jury, and the government bailed out todd by having about a five and a half hour closing argument. paul: right. well, there's some critics from outside that are armchair quarterbacking, for sure, who say, you know, the defense should have conceded that the stormy daniels encounter did occur and that by denying that, it might have cast some doubt in the minds of the jury about other claims by the defense. does that have any currency with you? >> only a tiny bill. i mean, look, i think they overdignified stormy because at the end of the day, you know, she presented a little bit of a target for them for credibility when it comes to owing the president half a million bucks and not paying it, cashing in on this relationship, inconsistent statements. it was kind of a temptation to cross-examine her that they succumbed to. but the reality is they could have easily just stood up and said we don't have any questions, we don't know why she's here and then come back in closing argument and say the whole thing was a waste and a distraction. i do think the government succeeded, unfortunately, in equating sordid with criminal, with putting all sorts of dirt on the table that landed with this jury. paul right. all right, the other thing that's a been in contention here is the judge's behavior with the trump forces saying that the judge behaved in a way that benefited the prosecution. and you mentioned earlier the charge to the jury that helped the prosecution. explain where you think the judge tilted in that direction. >> yeah. well, i think there's a couple of things. number one, just by nature i'm kind of hesitant to go all in on accusing a judge of anything. if i'm not in the courtroom every day, because you miss the tone in which they're reacting to the attorneys, you miss just the kind of subtle psychology of how a judge is treating either side. and there's a lot of people that are saying without ever setting foot in the courtroom that they know exactly what a makes this judge tick. there's a couple of flashpoints that are of concern, the first being he should have recused himself from the if start. and it's not about the penny ante contributions he made to the biden or obama campaigns, it's that his daughter was in the machine of the democratic party making millions of dollar, dealing with the national-level democratic party. that just not a good look, and i just don't understand why judges aren't more uniformly sensitive to the appearance of impropriety particularly on a case of this magnitude. that's strike one. strike two was hat whole trial proceeded, paul, without anyone really knowing what the theory of felonization was until instructions. that's an absurd or procedural error, and i kuwait process with fairness -- i equate process with fairness that infected this case from the beginning. so when the the judge finally gave the instructions on what made these misdemeanor bookkeeping entries felonies, it was kind of a menu, a buffet menu of you don't really have to decide whether there was a federal -- i'm sorry, a felony violation or what the exact basis is, just decide there's something illegal. it gives them three options which were vague and in some cases federal, which makes no sense in state court. is so i think that's the error -- probably the sexiest area for appeal is that coupled with the denial of the fec chair's testimony because that a just inflames the problem of mystery instructions that include federal ones getting 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 asked to particularize their indictment. there's 34 charges in the indictment that are template, they're bare bones charges. they list element and they say to wit a check or a rebellinger. they do not give -- ledger. the only time we had felony theories coming out was really kind of, i think, an unethical press conference by alvin bragg where he held up a statement of facts which was not anything the grand jury decided, but something alvin bragg decided. so he skirted the ethical prohibitions about talking about the facts of the case by kind of creating this impersonation document in lieu of an indictment. so you had a very vague indictment, a judge that did not make them particularize, and literally all the way to the closing arguments or at least to the charging conference there was not clear how he was going to instruct the jury on that critical issue of how these misdemeanors became felonies. so that's going to be a big one for appeal. i would also just mention real quick, paul, that the weinstein opinion coming out, you know, reinforces the idea that judges should not let collateral damaging information out during a trial, and that certainly happened here when you talk about the access hollywood tape being described and karen mc mcdougal's n darks being mentioned. -- nda a being mentioned. there's some pretty sexy areas for appeal if that are going to be coming, and it's going to take a some time, but i would start. paul: the weinstein case is the harvey weinstein case where the appellate court overturned the conviction. let's turn to sentencing here beliefly. the sentencing -- briefly. the sentencing hearing will be july 11th. do you think the judge will impose jail time? >> well, in a normal world, no. i mean, these are classy -- class e felonies which are a little bit big brothers to misdemeanors, right on the line of misdemeanors. it is an old case, it is a contrived case, it is a victimless case. so you would think in a normal world that the judge would immediately get to the point of talking about probation and any conditions of probation. it's just hard to predict, you know, in the lawfare world we're living. i think the biggest starting point is the defense some point soon will reach out to the prosecution and say do you know with what your position is going to be at sentencing. if the government with says it's a bridge too far to ask for jail, then that's going to really put judge merchan out on a limb if he's even thinking about it. that would give the defense a reasonable amount of confidence that that we're not talking about any form of custody whatsoever for the president. but, you know, open question until we get probably june or july. paul: jim trust key, thanks so much finish trusty. still ahead, much more on the verdict and the cl trial of former president donald trump and the troubling legal precedent it e sets for other politicacal figures. ♪ made with whole meat and veggies. it's not dry food. it's not wet food. it's just real food. it's an idea whose time has come. how do you find the perfect father's day gift? simple. just type wt.com. weathertech has hundreds of premium products that will keep dad's vehicle looking its best. like laser-measured floorliners, cargo liner and seat protector for extra interior protection. sunshade blocks harmful uv rays. the cupfone perfectly secures his phone while driving. order these american made products or a gift card at wt.com. happy father's day. ♪ >> i did my job. our job is to follow the facts and the law without fear or favor, and that's exactly what we did here. many voices out there, the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury. and the jury has spoke. paul: that was manhattan district attorney alvin bragg on thursday the reacting to donald trump's conviction saying all 34 charges against the former president were based on facts and law and were brought by his office without fear or favor. let's bring in our panel, "wall street journal" columnists dan dan henninger bill mcgurn and editorial board member kyle peterson. kyle, you followed this trial very closely. did alvin bragg just follow the facts and the law? >> well, the truth is that this case was profoundly political from the start, and this would not be a case that would be brought against any other businessman who engaged in some kind of business records thing seven years ago, i think. and you can see that in the closing arguments when the prosecutors says this is election fraud, more or less, that this is what might have decided the 2016 election and made donald trump the president president. i do think maybe the defense could have taken a different tack by stipulating that there was some sort of affair with stormy daniels and preempting her testimony or much of it from coming in even though the judge seems to have lost control of her as a witness, and that could be another potential avenue of appeal for the president -- paul: because there was prejudicial testimony brought in. >> correct. and the trump team could argue what does any of this have to do9 with the business records that we had? similarly, i think the defense could have stipulated9 that the payments to michael cohen in 2017 were reimbursement for that hush money and that a argued to the jury that that at worst maybe that's a misdemeanor from the statute of limitations has a expired, not the kind of felonies that a alvin bragg was putting crimes inside of crimes in order to elevate them that way. paul: dan, from a legal point of view what do you think the implications are for this kind of prosecution in such a hypofile political case?? -- high profile political case? >> i think the implications are dire, to tell you the truth. there are both legal and political implications, quite frankly. paul: we'll get to the politics later, but i'm thinking about credibility of the legal system. >> well, the cred credibility of the legal system is already under pressure, and what's really under pressure here is i think the credibility, again, politics is unavoidable, paul, new york political system and especially new york city. what are people out there sitting back looking at this thinking about new york? we already know that the new york legislatures have gone completely to the left. mayor adams, the mayor, is having a difficult time because the city council is so progressive. the state legislature is so progressive. new york state has a reputation for having a highly respectable legal system, and yet with here you had a trial that the southern district, a case they failed to bring. alvin bragg pushed this case, got a manhattan jury, a judge who, by and large, sided with the prosecution on balance throughout the case and somehow brought a conviction from a manhattan jury. and i think, certainly, new york's legal system is going to be under a cloud after this, and i think given what has been going on with lawfare generally out there that the american people are really becoming upset about an institution that they bought thought was an arbiter for these kinds of disputes and instead has become a political player. paul: bill, we've always thought that you have to put your trust in juries. >> right. paul: the jury system is what we have, and they are the closest to the case based on the facts that they heard in that six weeks. what do you make of this then? do we have to say in this case they were wrong or what? >> no. i think juries are only good as what they hear, or you know? they can't be blamed for what they don't hear. and the instructions to the jury and the denial of certain witnesses trump wanted to bring, i think that reflected in their vote. so i don't blame the jury. i think two points about it. one, i think it's going to be reversed on appeal. remember, new york courts, whatever you think of to them, they've reversed harvey weinstein -- [laughter] paul: right. >> -- appeal. they said he didn't -- they brought witnesses that shouldn't have been heard -- paul: present additional testimony. >> yes. so if they could do that, probably the most unsympathetic defendant after trump in the country, i think there's hope for trump. so i do think there's so much grounds for reversal. but the second point is it doesn't matter, because it will have served it purpose. -- its purpose. it allows joe biden to say during the campaign convicted felon. in that way it's exactly the same as the letter those 511 former intel letters signed saying hunter biden's laptop -- which, by the way, will be evidence in the trial beginning next week -- was likely soviet, russian disinformation. it serves its political purpose even if it's reversed. paul: kyle, fascinating element of this is the prosecution resorted to election denial. it basically introduced the fact that this may well have turned the payoffs may well have turned the 2016 election. i thought they were saying that election denial was a bad thing in 020, and here they're saying, well, going back to 2016. >> right. and to be clear, it's a bad thing in both cases -- [laughter] i don't think the 2020 election was stolen or the 2016 election was stolen. but if democrats are worried about republicans talking about stolen elections now, just wait until if we get a biden victory this november under the cloud of this conviction and then it's overturned on appeal which i agree there's a reasonable chance of success there for donald trump because of the way that a this was structured. again, remember, trump was convicted of falsifying business records in order to commit or conceal a second crime which was campaigning unlawfully in new york. and the unlawful means was either some sort of tax violation or covering up falsification of other business records or a federal campaign finance violation. there was a lot of fodder there for appeals courts. there's a former f if ec commissioner who say no way, no how was this a campaign a expense. and because those three are all tied together, if that a falls, i think the overall conviction has to go. paul: when we come back, much more on the guilty verdict against donald trump and the potential political fallout for both the former president and joe biden as the 20 this campaign -- 2024 campaign heads into the summer stretch. more confidence abetes h and lower your a1c. try it for free at freestylelibre.us always dry scoop before you run. listen to me, the hot dog diet got me shredded. it's time we listen to science. one a day is formulated with key nutrients to support whole body health. one a day. science that matters. norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc? ♪ >> after a careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. they found donald trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. now he'll be given the opportunity, as he should, to appeal that decision just like everyone else has that that opportunity. that's how the american system of justice works. paul: president biden reacting to the conviction of his 2024 presidential rival as both sides brace for the political fallout from the trial. a poll released thursday before the jury reached its verdict found that 67% of voters said a conviction would make no difference in november with that number rising to 74% among dependents. so, dan, i want to get at this nexus of law and politics again. this whole strategy of lawfare seems to open up a whole new era for the american system, political system where using the prosecutions to disqualify an opponent, i think, is going to becoming regular behavior. >> yeah, i completely agree. this is opening a pandora's box. let's -- what has happened to trump is simply what we call a precedent. it's a legal precedent, historical precedent and, yes, indeed, it's going to be a political precedent. if anybody out there thinks that republican or conservative prosecutors at some point in the future are not going if to undertake a prosecution of this sort against a political opponent, they are dreaming. it's tit for tat. there is even an argument you could make that republican prosecutors will probably feel they have to do this now to balance what the democrats have just accomplished with this prosecution. and, truth to tell, that is going to diminish the legal system -- paul: right. >> -- for sure. it is going to the highly politicize is it. but i think a lot of republican attorneys general out there and prosecutors are not going to be the least bit reluctant about doing this sort of thing. paul: we're on the road to bolivia. and if that isn't unfair to bolivia. bill, is this going to make any difference to the republican nomination at all? some do you think that trump will not be the nominee? >> no. i think it's going to