Do you agree with CNN?

[hislegacy]

“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.

 

[durangodawood]

Link, please......?

Absent that, this is just some guy named Zeldin saying he thinks theres reasonable doubt. Not sure why a should credit some guy who happens to be called Zeldin.

As for CNN, you havent presented any position of theirs.

 

[Paulos23]

That is not an option of CNN but a guest of CNN.

And I have to ask, what trial was he watching?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Link, please......?

Absent that, this is just some guy named Zeldin saying he thinks theres reasonable doubt. Not sure why a should credit some guy who happens to be called Zeldin.

As for CNN, you havent presented any position of theirs.

Zelin or Zeldin? Zeldin sounds like the former congressman Lee Zeldin from NY who lost when he ran for government. If Zeldin, the bigger question becomes why should we bother with a politician's opinion who likely didn't watch any of the trial.

 

[iluvatar5150]

CNN guest says reasonable doubt is ‘all over’ New York v. Trump | Fox News Video

Defense attorney Randy Zelin believes prosecutors ‘fell way short’ of proving former President Trump is guilty.

www.foxnews.com

ETA: He doesn't appear to be a strident MAGAdonian, but he does appear to be at least sympathetic to conservatism:

x.com

x.com

 

[durangodawood]

Zelin or Zeldin? Zeldin sounds like the former congressman Lee Zeldin from NY who lost when he ran for government. If Zeldin, the bigger question becomes why should we bother with a politician's opinion who likely didn't watch any of the trial.

Oops. Youre right, its Zelin. And all that effort I put into this thread. Wasted.

I never really liked this prosecution. Not because Trump is likely innocent. My intuition is he's totally guilty. But its such a little thing compared to the documents and election fraud/tampering issues. Still, this law is the law for a good reason.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I cannot say I agree or disagree because I have not watched the trial or read much in the way of arguments that were presented on either side of the case in order to form an opinion.

 

[rambot]

“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.

I haven't watched a single day of this trial.
But I have very, very loosely monitored and followed a lawyer who did. He is not nearly as hopeful for Trump.

So, in response to the OP, I haven't personally watched enough of the trial to have an opinion, but according to others, I wouldn't believe that guy.

 

[wing2000]

I haven't watched a single day of this trial.

Nor has anyone else including Randy Zelin (unless he's been in the courtroom every single day and heard all the testimony).
In any case, it doesn't matter what Zelin or any of us think....the jury will decide.

 

[rambot]

Nor has anyone else including Randy Zelin (unless he's been in the courtroom every single day and heard all the testimony).
In any case, it doesn't matter what Zelin or any of us thing....the jury will decide.

agreed

 

[Yttrium]

Not knowing why Zelin thinks there's reasonable doubt, he's just a random guy with an opinion, so I'm not going to take him seriously. And if he had said that Trump was clearly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I also wouldn't take him seriously. I'm not going to base my opinions on hearsay with no supporting evidence. Bolduan asked Zelin how they fell short, and Zelin didn't provide any useful information in those quotes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

CNN guest says reasonable doubt is ‘all over’ New York v. Trump | Fox News Video

Defense attorney Randy Zelin believes prosecutors ‘fell way short’ of proving former President Trump is guilty.

www.foxnews.com

ETA: He doesn't appear to be a strident MAGAdonian, but he does appear to be at least sympathetic to conservatism:

x.com

x.com

Does this mean that we are getting information about the trial (OK, not information about it, opinions about it) through unreferenced articles on Foxnews . com about CNN analysts? Sigh.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Does this mean that we are getting information about the trial (OK, not information about it, opinions about it) through unreferenced articles on Foxnews . com about CNN analysts? Sigh.

It's conceivable that the OP saw the interview directly on CNN. The Fox link was the first one I found.

 

[hislegacy]

Does this mean that we are getting information about the trial (OK, not information about it, opinions about it) through unreferenced articles on Foxnews . com about CNN analysts? Sigh.

Yeah, I wish FOX would quote someone more reliable than CNN also

It's conceivable that the OP saw the interview directly on CNN. The Fox link was the first one I found.

He did indeed - he reads from a variety of sources. He doesn't have cable TV - refuses to pay for what is supposed to be free.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Yeah, I wish FOX would quote someone more reliable than CNN also

He did indeed - he reads from a variety of sources. He doesn't have cable TV - refuses to pay for what is supposed to be free.

But it's not "CNN." It's a guest's opinion on CNN. I don't think Christianforums.com would appreciate taking some of my opinions, for instance, as the official opinion held by the owners of the forum, do you think?

I mean, if anything, it shows that CNN works to present opposing views fairly doesn't it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

But it's not "CNN." It's a guest's opinion on CNN. I don't think Chritianforums.com would appreciate taking some of my opinions, for instance, as the official opinion held by the owners of the forum, do you think?

Someone, somewhere has probably already done that to CF posts. I was looking for something the other day on the googs related to a thread I was replying in and at the bottom of the last page was the thread I was writing a post for. Rinse. Repeat as necessary.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you agree with CNN?​

About what?

 

[hislegacy]

I mean, if anything, it shows that CNN works to present opposing views fairly doesn't it?

No offense - that really made me laugh. IMHO - no, they don't like dissenting opinions - watch the video and find out.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No offense - that really made me laugh. IMHO - no, they don't like dissenting opinions - watch the video and find out.

Can't. On work laptop. And you didn't link the video. And I don't really care enough about this to actually take the time to do so.

 

[hislegacy]

Can't. On work laptop. And you didn't link the video. And I don't really care enough about this to actually take the time to do so.

Confused - you cared enough to criticize the poster, but don't care enough to look at the information you are criticizing. Interesting.