In a blistering critique on the heels of Donald Trump's high-profile legal battle, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig delivered a scathing assessment of the proceedings that led to the conviction of the former president. The headline-grabbing case, which concluded yesterday with a guilty verdict on all counts against Trump stirred up significant contention, not just for political implications but also for a “contortion of the law.”

A seasoned former federal and state prosecutor, Honig argued that the trial's structural issues and the contorted legal strategies employed highlight a worrying trend in political cases. One of Honig's biggest observations focused on the sanctity of the jury’s verdict and the conduct expected of prosecutors, regardless of the trial's outcome. Honig looked back on his first go as a trial lawyer in the op-ed.

“The lesson I learned that day and throughout my prosecutorial career, and have come to value even more ever since, is that the jury’s verdict is sacrosanct,” Honig said. “If a conviction goes our way, we prosecutors don’t pump our fists and celebrate, even mildly. And when a verdict goes against us, we don’t sulk. When we lose, we stand in and take it. Any emotional reaction, either way, would disrespect the judge, the jury, and, most importantly, the person whose liberty was about to be stripped. Prosecutors get to go to dinner and then sleep at home, no matter what the jury says. The defendant might not.”

However, Honig did not spare the judiciary either, particularly criticizing the judge’s small but symbolically significant political donation, which he argued casts doubt on the impartiality required of the judicial system; and his critiques did not end there.

(ALERT: Biden's New Executive Order Will Crush The US Dollar For Good)

“The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for 'resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.' Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to 'Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!'? Absolutely not,” Honig explained.

Moreover, he criticized the Manhattan District Attorney's office for its handling of the case, saying that the charges against Trump were inflated and unprecedented, only brought to life through legal gymnastics intended to extend the statute of limitations.

Trump was convicted Thursday on all 34 counts in the falsification of business records case linked to the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal. The verdict marked Trump as the first U.S. president in history to be convicted of a felony.

“But that doesn’t mean that every structural infirmity around the Manhattan district attorney’s case has evaporated,” the CNN analyst continued. “Both of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess. Sure, victory is the great deodorant, but a guilty verdict doesn’t make it all pure and right. Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. 'But they won' is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to 'win,' now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later.”

As the case is expected to move to the appeals court where Trump will seek to overturn the conviction, the issues Honig raised will become central to the ongoing debate. Judge Merchan set the sentencing date for July 11.

CAST YOUR VOTE: Should Voter ID Be Mandatory In The 2024 Election?