No more to say, at least for Donald Trump’s defense. Todd Blanche, the lead attorney for the Republican former president, laid out his closing arguments on Tuesday morning before a jury of seven men and five women in New York. They will decide whether Trump, the first former U.S. president charged with criminal offenses, becomes the first to be convicted in such a case. A guilty verdict would be extraordinary and would shake the presidential race in November, when Trump faces Joe Biden again on the ballot.
Ahead of the deliberations, Blanche spent more than two and a half hours dismantling the prosecution on multiple fronts. The office led by Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with 34 offenses. These stem from alleged accounting falsifications to hide a reimbursement to Michael Cohen for a $130,000 payment made before the 2016 election to silence Stormy Daniels and her account of a possible past sexual encounter with Trump. Prosecutors argue that the act was intended to influence the election in Trump’s favor, a claim that Trump ultimately won against Hillary Clinton.
That is a central argument Blanche attacked. At one point the attorney told the jurors that even if there was a conspiracy to win an election, every campaign in the country operates as a conspiracy of sorts.
That same idea had been echoed by Trump in his own remarks outside the courtroom before the session began. He said in the hallway that election interference is a pursuit of Biden’s political opponent because Biden himself cannot compete, describing the day as a black day for the United States.
The Cohen testimony and the reasonable doubt standard
All witnesses and evidence presented by the prosecution over six weeks has been challenged by Blanche. He attacked Daniels, arguing she sought only to extort Trump. But most notably, he went after Cohen, the star witness for the case.
The lawyer repeatedly labeled Cohen a liar, even during his time on the stand, and called him the Gloat, an English acronym for the greatest liar of all time. He told jurors that they cannot convict based on Cohen’s words alone, a point the judge warned would be struck from the record.
In the end, Blanche left the jury with ten reasons to doubt and stated forcefully that the verdict should not be a referendum on the president or his political ambitions. If the jurors focus solely on the political questions, he argued, they will reach a quick and easy acquittal rather than carefully weighing the actual evidence.
The verdict spoke to not only legal questions but also the burden of proof. Blanche emphasized that the case rests on the shown evidence, not on personal opinions about Trump or his policies.
The trial then moved toward its pivotal stage as the defense wrapped up. The defense counsel argued that the jurors should not equate political controversy with criminal guilt. The questions before them were about specific acts and evidence presented in court, not about broader political judgments.
The prosecution’s final word
The challenge for Blanche and Trump was that the closing arguments are not the final words the jury will hear. After a lunch break, the prosecution would present its rebuttal, with Joshua Steinglass leading the case. The prosecutors prepared a closing that could last more than four hours, ensuring the jurors would retire for the night before receiving the judge’s final instructions on Wednesday and beginning deliberations the next day.
The courtroom atmosphere was tense as both sides prepared to present their last thoughts before the jury’s careful evaluation. The proceedings will hinge on whether the evidence supports criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the charges align with the facts proven in the six weeks of testimony and exhibits. The outcome will shape the political landscape in the United States as campaigns for the next election cycle unfold.
In summary, the defense aimed to plant doubt about the credibility of key witnesses and to frame the charges as a political maneuver rather than straightforward criminal conduct. The prosecution, conversely, sought to tie the financial misstatements to an intent to influence a presidential race, arguing that the actions went beyond bookkeeping and crossed into criminal territory. The jury’s task was clear, though arduous: determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented and the applicable laws, without letting outside considerations sway judgment. The case stands as a crucial moment in American legal and political history, watched closely by observers across the country and beyond. [citation]