[Fox News] Top 10 sharpest mainstream media criticisms of the Trump prosecution

Read Time:7 Minute, 10 Second

Legal analysts and media pundits have dished out some strong criticism of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump, as the jury deliberates the former president’s fate. 

Many pointed to the prosecution’s key witnesses, adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, suggesting they both had credibility issues, and some argued that the prosecution did not meet the reasonable doubt standard.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made to Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. 

Defense attorney Randy Zelin said Tuesday during an appearance on CNN that the prosecution fell “way short” in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

“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 also pointed to Cohen’s credibility issues. 

“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. 

CNN’s Elie Honig, a senior legal analyst at the network, was stunned by Cohen admitting to stealing $60,000 from the Trump Organization during cross-examination. 

He said that it was a more serious crime than what Trump is on trial for in Manhattan.

“The fact that he was never charged with larceny is important because stealing $60,000 through fraud, which would be larceny in New York State, is more serious of a crime than falsifying business records,” he said. 

Both Honig and CNN political commentator Tim Parlatore suggested the admission was glazed over during the prosecution’s initial questioning of Cohen.

“The fact that it was minimized in that way by the prosecution, I think it presents a very good opportunity and closing for — they knew about this. They minimized it, the prosecutor misled this jury,” Parlatore said. 

Cohen came under fire for speaking out against the hush money case on TikTok, prior to taking the stand as a witness. 

“His lack of impulse control in all of this is remarkable,” New York Times reporter Susanne Craig told MSNBC. “He went out on Twitter and said I’m not going to say anything else … then was out on a TikTok live video with a shirt of Donald Trump behind bars.”

MICHAEL COHEN TIKTOK VIDEOS, FUNDRAISING STUN LEGAL OBSERVERS: MAY HAVE ‘TORPEDOED CASE AGAINST TRUMP’

CNN’s Honig also called Daniels’ credibility into question following the defense team’s cross-examination of her.

“Her responses were disastrous,” Honig said, referring to the moment when Daniels admitted that she hates Trump. “That’s a big deal.” 

“When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that’s a big damn deal!” Honig said. “And she’s putting out tweets, fantasizing about him being in jail. That really undermines the credibility.”

Daniels gave a highly detailed account of having sex with Trump in a Lake Tahoe, Nevada, hotel room. Daniels was described in trial media reports as talking fast, making jokes and often going beyond directly answering questions she was asked; Judge Juan Merchan at one point told prosecutors their witness was going into “unnecessary” detail.

LEGAL EXPERTS HAMMER STORMY DANIELS TESTIMONY AT TRUMP TRIAL: ‘DISASTROUS’ RESPONSES WILL ‘BACKFIRE’

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Daniels’ testimony turned the trial of Trump “into a quasi-sex assault case,” giving his legal team an opening for appeal, questioning her credibility. 

“You always ask the question, can you get this information from a less risky witness?” he said. 

“Stormy Daniels is one of those witnesses that tends to not just answer the question asked, but add her own editorial. And that is a really dangerous thing, I promise you. The prosecution is sitting at their desk saying, ‘Just answer the question, please. Just answer the question,’” Cevallos continued.

Cevallos also said her testimony could have been accomplished by her answering with just three words, “We had sex,” and added the rest was likely unnecessary. 

STORMY ALLEGES ONE-NIGHT STAND WITH TRUMP, AGREED TO LIE FOR HER $130,000 PAYOFF

Comedian and “Real Time” host Bill Maher, who previously supported the New York trial, had to admit during one of his show’s monologues that Daniels was point-blank “not a good witness.”

“She’s talking about ‘he was bigger and blocking the way.’ It’s all the Me Too buzzwords. She said, ‘There was an imbalance of power for sure.’ ‘My hands were shaking so hard.’ She said she blacked out. Blacked out? She’s a porn star!… Do you really think she blacked out? A porn star is used to having sex with people she doesn’t [like]… I just think she’s not a good witness,” Maher said.

He had previously suggested that the trial could “change the whole election” and claimed Bragg could emerge as a “rising star” in the party.

MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin argued that Cohen looked like a liar after Todd Blanche questioned Cohen about his communications with Trump’s former bodyguard Keith Schiller, which she deemed to be a “triumph” for Trump’s team. 

“Cohen not only admitted that he is now less than certain about what got discussed that day [October 24] and that it could have been both but he’s not positive given the one minute and 30-something seconds of that phone call, but also that in eight years he had never seen that Keith Schiller text and that it was not among the things that the district attorney’s office had shown him,” Rubin said.

She added, “That makes the district attorney’s office look sloppy in addition to making Michael Cohen seem like a self-assured either fabricator, liar or forgetful person. It casts doubt on the veracity of a ton of his testimony and not just about who he did or didn’t talk to on October 24 or October 26. It sort of cast lots of his testimony in doubt, given the passage of time and makes the district attorney’s office look terrible all in one breath.” 

“Shark Tank” investor Kevin O’Leary had harsh words for the trial taking place during the election season.

“This is sheer stupidity. And I’ll tell you what should happen. This should be pushed until after he wins or doesn’t win. This should not be part of this election cycle at all. And this is not a Trump-loving comment. This is about the American brand, where I bring capital from all around the world to invest here. We look like clowns. I hate this,” O’Leary told “Outnumbered.”

KEVIN O’LEARY RIPS ‘SHEER STUPIDITY’ OF TRUMP TRIAL, SAYS IT HURTS THE ‘AMERICAN BRAND’: ‘WE LOOK LIKE CLOWNS’

In a New York Times guest essay, Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman admitted that Bragg’s arguments were “weak” and likely overreaching.

Bragg’s election interference theory is “weak,” Shugerman wrote. “As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement.”

He also warned that Trump could win an appellate court case if he were convicted based on what he considered poor opening statements by the prosecution.

“This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution,” Shugerman concluded. “But if [that] opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all.”

Former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein explained on “Brian Kilmeade Radio” why the case is a sham, comparing it to the lack of legal action on the Biden family.

“This is an outrageous case. It’s an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought,” Epstein said.

He added, “Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016.” 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Read More 

About Post Author

Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %