Trump lawyer whacked for ignoring 'slew of problematic evidence' in closing statement

Donald Trump's defense failed to address some of the most damning evidence in their closing argument in the hush money case, argued one former federal prosecutor on Wednesday.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche delivered a three-and-a-half-hour closing statement casting doubt on some of the evidence presented by prosecutors, particularly testimony from Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, but MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann faulted his thoroughness.

"I thought one of the notable things was what the defense did not talk about," Weissmann told "Morning Joe." "It was pretty striking to me, the two smoking-gun documents, exhibits 35 and 36, the handwritten notes that detail exactly how the payment scheme was going to work, they were not in any way substantively addressed by Todd Blanche, the lead attorney for Donald Trump. That was really surprising."

READ MORE: Revealed: Lawmaker who gave J6ers a Capitol tour targets ex-Capitol Police intel head

"You know, for evidence that is clearly going to be central to the government's case and summation, you have to say something," Weissmann added. "Hope Hicks' testimony that sort of very damaging admissions she testified to were not addressed by Todd Blanche. David Pecker's really damning statements were not addressed by Todd Blanche. There was just a slew of problematic evidence for the defense that Todd Blanche decided he would not address and that is really a gift to Joshua Steinglass, the experienced D.A. who was giving the state's summation and then on the state side."

Steinglass walked jurors through the state's evidence for nearly five hours, and Weissmann said that length likely reflected the fact that they would be deliberating the fate of a former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

"I think one of the reasons it was so long is because this is the former president and potentially the future president, I think that Mr. Steinglass was worried about whether the jury would at least subconsciously be holding the state to a higher burden of proof than even proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Weissmann said. "So I think he really wanted to hammer home all of the facts and make sure he wasn't leaving anything on the table and went through everything exhaustively, and so I think that's one of the reasons you saw a sort of unusually long summation for a case of this duration."

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTubeyoutu.be