'Really inappropriate': CNN guests clash after legal expert hits out at Trump charges

A law professor sparred with a former federal prosecutor over a New York Times Op-Ed that challenged the criminal basis for the charges against Donald Trump in the historic hush money trial.

"I have to say, I think it is really inappropriate that you'd have used the word, the phrase 'selective prosecution' on-air and multiple times in this Op-Ed; none of the red flags you identified established selective prosecution under New York law," former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori snapped on CNN.

He was digging into Jed Handelsman Shugerman, a Boston University law professor who published the piece titled, "I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake".

Their spat appeared on CNN's "NewsNight" with Abby Phillip Wednesday.

Shugerman's writeup cited three "red flags"' that he maintained undermine the criminal validity of the case itself.

Former President Trump stands accused of falsifying business records to hide payments allegedly made to cover up a sexual relationship with an adult movie star that he feared would damage his chances in the 2016 election.

Alone the charges are misdemeanors, but he's been charged with felonies — meaning Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg must prove it was done to "predicate underlying crime."

Shugerman argues Bragg pointed to potential violations of state and federal election law and state tax fraud to elevate the crimes.

But there doesn't appear to be any "previous" cases to lean on involving a crime that involves Federal Election Campaign Act, according to Shugerman.

He wrote that the case therefore lacks any "predicate (underlying) crime" as New York statute requires.

ALSO READ: Bill Barr: The GOP's master 'fixer' for decades exposed

Lastly, he points to the absence of any other cases dealing with the "election interference” theory and rendering Bragg's effort "unprecedented".

When hit with the accusation that he was being misleading on live TV, Shugerman tried to explain what he meant with "selective prosecution".

His Op-Ed reads: "This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution."

After Khardori questioned the substance of the term "selective prosecution," Shurgerman tried to say that the case was frivolously brought because "there is a line of precedence about selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution under the 14th Amendment."

And while Khardori wanted a better explanation of the term as it relates to New York law, Shugerman argued that the same standard applies to both state and federal jurisdictions.

Watch the video below or at this link.