CNN Legal Analyst Argues Prosecution Fell ‘Way Short’ of Proving Its Case Against Trump
A CNN legal analyst says the prosecution in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial failed to make their case. On Tuesday, defense attorney Randy Zelin appeared on the network and discussed the state of the…
A CNN legal analyst says the prosecution in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial failed to make their case.
On Tuesday, defense attorney Randy Zelin appeared on the network and discussed the state of the prosecution’s case.
“The burden of proof is an important one to remind everyone: It’s on the prosecution, right? They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he commit — that Donald Trump broke the law. And you think after listening to all of this, you think they fell short. How?” host Kate Bolduan asked.
Zelin responded, ““They fell way short, because 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.’”
“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 added.
Watch the video below:
Zelin then argued the prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable that Trump directed his former fixer Michael Cohen to pay hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election:
“Where is Keith Schiller? Where is Allen Weisselberg? How did Michael Cohen get away with stealing $30,000? Hold a pity party for him — made $4 million on this, thought he’d be chief of staff. 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.”
Finally, 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 — getting intent to cover up the election or to protect his family? everywhere. Everywhere!”