Lawyers for former President Donald Trump and his organization have spent much of the past two weeks drawing testimony from banking and accounting experts to build a case that Deutsche Bank courted the former president’s business so eagerly that there was no need for him to try to trick his way into the bank’s good graces.
Whether the judge credits the defense arguments remains to be seen, but as the civil fraud trial gets down to its closing phase, the defense has repeatedly alleged prosecutorial bias of such severity that a higher court should throw out the entire proceeding.

In November, President Trump’s lawyers filed a motion for mistrial, arguing that New York State Supreme Court Justice Arther Engoron had repeatedly shown bias and contempt for the defense and that the case lacked legal merit in the first place. The judge ruled against the request.
Experts have said that the issue of bias goes beyond the $250 million penalty that New York Attorney General Letitia James seeks to levy.
Nature of the Relationship
Some of the most closely watched testimony in the monthslong case came on Nov. 29, as Rosemary Vrablic, a former managing director of Deutsche Bank, described her role as an intermediary between public figures in the Trump Organization and the top echelons of the powerful financial institution she served from 2006 to 2020.
Ms. Vrablic recounted that she personally arranged a lunch meeting between President Trump and the bank’s then-CEO, Anshu Jain. She described the meeting as cordial, not particularly focused on any specific business matter, and part of a larger pattern of increasingly close, friendly dealings between the bank and the Trump family.
Ms. Vrablic acknowledged having sent emails to Ivanka Trump and others, praising in the highest terms the prestige that having President Trump and his organization as clients brought to the bank and expressing the hope of further business dealings. She made clear that Deutsche Bank wanted President Trump’s business.
According to some observers, the testimony of Ms. Vrablic and other banking experts has helped expose the government’s case against President Trump and his associates as misguided at best, and, at worst, as a selective prosecution motivated by political animosity.
Others disagree. Recently, some in the media seized upon a passage in one of Ms. Vrablic’s emails in which she went over the terms of a loan and described the term “recourse” as a “four-letter word.”

Government lawyers asked Ms. Vrablic whether members of the Trump family objected to an arrangement under which, in the event of a default on a loan, the bank would have the right to seize assets not put forward under the loan’s original terms.
Ms. Vrablic answered that clients in general don’t like when loans include such a recourse clause—in unforeseen circumstances, borrowers for obvious reasons don’t want any of their assets to be vulnerable.
Long before the civil fraud trial got underway on Oct. 3, The New York Times attempted to discredit Ms. Vrablic, noting in a Feb. 2021 article that she left Deutsche Bank after failing to make certain disclosures about a real estate investment she collaborated on with Dominic Scalzi, a colleague at the bank. Mr. Scalzi also left Deutsche Bank in December 2020.

Keith Naughton, the principal of Silent Majority Strategies, a Maryland-based consultancy, said the larger point about the consensual nature of the Deutsche Bank–Trump Organization relationship still stands—as do questions about Ms. James’s political motives.
Due Process
Despite the media’s attempts to cast doubt on Ms. Vrablic’s credibility, the pall of a political prosecution still hangs over the trial, experts told The Epoch Times.Ms. James is a Democrat who, upon election to state attorney general in 2018, made explicit threats to investigate President Trump’s real estate dealings and expose what she saw as rampant fraud.
If Ms. James is bent on going after real estate entrepreneurs for any perceived reporting irregularities, the implications are considerable, Mr. Naughton said.

“I think it’s worth asking the New York attorney general if she intends to convene a task force to investigate this type of real estate fraud in New York, or is this just prosecutorial opportunism?” he said.
“It seems a dangerous precedent that anyone in New York who takes an optimistic view of their accounting would be on the hook for a financial death penalty. I doubt there is a real estate developer in the state who would survive such a precedent.”
The former president’s legal team has repeatedly described the valuations in President Trump’s statements of financial condition as broad estimates.
Hillsdale’s Mr. Steele said he believes that Ms. James’s actions are blatantly partisan and part of a larger pattern.
“This case is obviously political and has nothing to do with law, justice, or fairness. It is an attempt by government officials to use the legal system to destroy a political opponent,” he said.
“Higher courts certainly should review this case. What is happening is extremely dangerous for America.”
David Carlucci, a Democrat and former New York state senator who now works as a political consultant, said it’s too soon to decide whether there’s a need for any type of judicial review.
“Mistrial and lengthy appeals are possibilities, but predicting outcomes is speculative at this stage. The complexities of the case will likely be thoroughly examined through the legal proceedings, ensuring a fair and just resolution,” he said.

Coming down either for or against the legality of Mr. Trump’s dealings and what, if any, penalty might be appropriate, would be premature before the trial is over, Mr. Carlucci said.
“It’s crucial to let the judicial process unfold before drawing conclusions. The defense’s claims about Deutsche Bank and concerns about the judge’s comments warrant attention, but it’s within the court’s purview to address such matters,” he said.
Mr. Naughton said he expects President Trump’s legal team to appeal any adverse judgment and believes a smaller penalty than the one originally sought is all but inevitable. The verdict may even be thrown out, according to Mr. Naughton.
“An appellate case is far less of a circus,“ he said. ”As a result, I think Trump will have a better show of it on appeal.”