Legal Analyst: Prosecution Fell ‘Way Short’ Of Proving Trump Guilty in Hush Money Case

A noted legal analyst told a CNN panel on Tuesday as closing arguments were being made in former President Donald Trump’s so-called ‘hush money’ case that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecutors fell “way short” of proving guilt.

“They fell way short,” defense attorney Randy Zelin told CNN’s Kate Bolduan.

“Let’s start with reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? And it’s not simply a doubt based upon reason. Any time a human being needs to make an important decision in life, if you have enough information, for example, doctor says you need open-heart surgery, ‘Doc, go ahead and schedule. I don’t have a reasonable doubt,”’ Zelin added.

“Conversely, if I say, ‘I appreciate it, but I need a second opinion, I need more information,’ that is having a reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt all over this case,” he said.

Zelin continued his criticism of the prosecution, questioning why Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller and former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg did not testify. He also highlighted Michael Cohen’s lack of credibility as a significant flaw in the prosecution’s case.

“He’s a fixer. If the plumber comes to my house to fix my leak, I could be home — that doesn’t mean I know how he’s doing it and what it’s taking to be fixed,” Zelin said.

“Stormy Daniels — let’s hold a pity party for her. Why do we need to know whether or not the former president wore a condom or not? It’s simply about, did the former president know that books, his records, false entries for legal fees — Michael Cohen was his lawyer,” Zelin continued. “Did he intend to cover up the election or to protect his family? It’s everywhere.”

As the nation awaits the verdict in Trump’s “hush money” trial in Manhattan, New York, a legal analyst is noting one moment from adult film star Daniels’ testimony that could have had a lasting impact on the jury.

Legal analyst Harry Litman, reporting from the Manhattan courtroom, noted that Daniels might have caused some confusion among the jury with her “wild” testimony.

“There was a lot to see as far as the jury. We’re talking about a very, very colorful witness who detailed kinds of events and just efforts and ways of being that, I think, for the jury, were fairly foreign. She spoke very quickly, nervously, she told a lot of jokes, but not all of them landed,” he tol MSNBC.

During her testimony, Judge Juan Merchan agreed with several objections from Trump’s defense team, which included overly detailed descriptions of their encounters, such as the clothing Trump wore and mentions of products like Old Spice.

The judge said at one point that Daniels was providing “unnecessary” details during her testimony, including a description of a sexual position she claimed she and Trump were in.

Litman noted that he had never seen Merchan as “irritated” as he was by the level of detail in the testimony. He characterized the testimony as “wild” and “hyper-colorful.” Daniels recounted a moment when she humorously asked Trump if Hugh Hefner was aware that he had taken his pajamas after Trump allegedly greeted her at a hotel suite door dressed in “silk or satin” pajamas. According to Daniels, Trump “politely” changed his attire at her request.

“My general feeling is, like, wow, this is a colorful, maybe hyper-colorful witness,” Litman added.

The jury began deliberating the case on Wednesday. Trump arrived in court in the morning, reports stated.

“Judge Juan Merchan will begin the proceedings at 10 a.m. ET when he instructs the jury about the law in the case — a vital process that Merchan estimates will take approximately an hour. Once the jury is charged, they can begin deliberating whether prosecutors met their burden by proving that Trump falsified 34 business records to further a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 election,” ABC News noted.