Closing arguments will begin Tuesday in the Manhattan business records trial of former President Donald Trump.
The defense will give their closing argument first, with Democrat New York City District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team to go second.
The closing arguments could stretch into a second day.
Trump expressed disagreement with that decision on Truth Social, posting Monday evening:
WHY IS THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ALLOWED TO MAKE THE FINAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST ME? WHY CAN’T THE DEFENSE GO LAST? BIG ADVANTAGE, VERY UNFAIR. WITCH HUNT! DJT
In a follow-up post, Trump also noted other elements of how case was presided over that legal analysts have called unfair.
Trump noted that Judge Juan Merchan quashed his defense team’s attempt to subpoena Mark Pomerantz as a witness. Pomerantz was a former prosecutor in Bragg’s office. Trump also noted that Merchan had restricted what another witness, former Federal Elections Commissioner Brad Smith, could say about campaign finance law so much that the defense decided not to use him. And Trump noted that Merchan lashed out at another of the defense’s witness, Bob Costello, threatening to strike his testimony from the record after he raised his eyebrows at one of Merchan’s ruling.
Trump posted:
Could somebody please ask Judge Merchan, whatever happened to MARK POMERANTZ, the man Alvin Bragg was furious at for the things he did on this contrived and unconstitutional case, and why wasn’t he allowed to testify? Also, why did Judge Merchan not allow Brad Smith, the leading Election Law Expert in the Country, to testify. He would have ended the case quickly by explaining the Law and stating that President Trump did nothing wrong. Likewise Bob Costello, and all of his direct and irrefutable knowledge, why was he so horribly treated and completely shut down by the Conflicted Judge, and why were his Emails and Text Messages not allowed to be shown…And then, of course, there’s the BIGGEST EVENT OF THEM ALL, but I’m not allowed to talk about it because I’m under an illegal and unconstitutional GAG ORDER. This is the Biden White House at work. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!
Last week, Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz attended the court, and later wrote: “The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn.”
Gregg Jarrett, a former defense attorney and current Fox News legal analyst, wrote in an op-ed on Foxnews.com that the trial bore “no resemblance” to the “cherished constitutional promise” of the right to a fair trial.
Jarrett wrote:
District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s absurd case made a mockery of our legal system. Judge Juan Merchan compounded the injustice by dismantling the principles of due process that every defendant deserves. His rulings from the bench consistently favored the prosecution and foreclosed Trump’s lawyers from presenting a bona fide defense that would be permitted in any other courtroom.
…
Working in tandem, Bragg and Merchan proved they have little respect for the rule of law or the rights of the accused. This is not an impartial tribunal. It’s an Orwellian show trial with a preordained outcome. There’s no presumption of innocence, only the expectation of guilt.
The verdict will be up the 12-person jury in a solid blue area.
President Joe Biden is already planning to make a statement on the verdict, Politico reported Friday, citing four anonymous sources.
Biden will reportedly make the statement from the White House, to show that it “isn’t political.”
RELATED — J.D. Vance: Trump Trial Is About Biden’s ‘Failed Record as Commander-in-Chief’
He is reportedly planning statements on the outcome, whether Trump is convicted or not. He will reportedly argue if Trump is convicted that there should not be a “convicted felon” as president, but is preparing for a “barrage” of criticism from Republicans and Trump if he is acquitted or if there is a hung jury.
A recent Quinnipiac poll showed that a conviction will not dramatically change support for Trump, with the majority of his supporters — 68 percent — saying it would not make a difference in their support, while 24 percent said it would make it more likely that they vote for him.
Only six percent said a conviction would make it less likely they would vote for him.
