George Washington University law professor and FOX News contributor Jonathan Turley has a message for the judge in the trial of former President Donald Trump on allegations that he hid hush money payments to adult movie star Stormy Daniels.

The professor appeared on the Fox News show “Hannity” where he said that Judge Juan Merchan should not allow the case to be decided by the jury but should issue a verdict himself.

“Joining us now is Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley let’s get your observations of the day. Not exactly the most credible witness to say the least,” the host said.

“No, not at all. Indeed, one of the most impressive things about the last two days is it does appear that Cohen may have committed perjury again. His explanations on various points do not strike some of us as true as. When he said that he surreptitiously taped the president which just blasts away ethical obligations, he said he was doing it to help Trump and keep David Pecker honest. It makes no sense. No one can get their head around that. That was just one of a number of moments where you really have to be impressed with this guy who really has shown throughout his life that he will only tell the truth if he is no alternative,” the professor said.

“Now what I think was the most amazing thing today is that the prosecutor said they would close the case, that they’ll rest their case after Cohen’s testimony is done. There is a problem. Nobody has established any elements of any crime. The government has not even stated or explained why listing these payments as legal expenses is not correct, they haven’t put on any material evidence to support those elements. Most judges would be insulted for prosecutors to say that’s a wrap without ever making a basis for a case,” he said.

“So the judge will have this motion for a directed verdict and I think any judge in good faith would grant that motion. If he sends this to the jury, he is sending a case to a jury where no crime was stated and even core factual issues remain very much in doubt.

“I still cannot figure out not only what the crime was that brought to life this dead misdemeanor, I can’t figure out what the government’s arguing as to how this should have been denoted. If it wasn’t an illegal expense what’s the notation some accountant should have put in a ledger? None of us know because they have just shrugged. And that’s what this case is — it’s a shrug. And they expect the judge to do the same,” he said.