Verdict Denialism and Bail Revocation
The reviews are in and pretty much every legal expert has panned the closing argument by Todd Blanche on behalf of his client, Donald Trump.
See for yourself.
Even without the idiotic “you can’t put a former POTUS in prison” argument, Todd Blanche’s argument was ridiculous, disjointed, and largely fictional. The jury’s reaction kind of pins that viewpoint in place.
On the other hand, the prosecution was brutal and riveting. That’s not me. That’s the jury. In short, they asked to stay late to hear it.
See for yourself.
It was, all in all, a very bad day for Donald Trump yesterday.
Outside the Court, Trump’s son, Donald Jr., Trump’s daughter-in-law and co-chair of the RNC, Lara Trump, and candidate Donald Trump’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, all issued statements that attacked the New York business record fraud case against Donald Trump as “election interference”.
The presence of political supporters for Donald Trump instead of family and friends makes clear here the intent of Donald Trump going forward is verdict denialism. If convicted, the political message of Trump’s campaign going forward is going to be “sham trial, sham verdict”.
For those who want to argue that Donald Trump, Jr. and daughter-in-law Lara are family, I’d say “Baloney.”
Donald Trump, Jr. refered to his father in the present tense as “the President of the United States” and did not emote that “they are going after my Dad because of his politics.”
Ditto for Lara who took the time to fundraise for the Trump campaign.
Verdict denialism, like election denialism, is an effective set of political blinders to the reality of the moment that is about to come.
With a felony conviction will come a motion for bail revocation.
While I doubt Judge Mercan will grant such a motion initially, I don’t doubt that Judge Merchan will advise Donald Trump that it is within his power to do so and that publicly commenting on the case, even by posting the “opinions” of others, will be enough to put Donald Trump in jail.