Why 'longtime Trump chroniclers' shouldn’t be shocked he reneged on NY trial testimony: legal analyst

When former President Donald Trump announced on social media Sunday, December 10 that he would not testify "for a second time" in his $250 million New York civil fraud trial, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin says many "savvy lawyers" and "longtime Trump chroniclers" were "surprised" — but should not have been.

In a Monday op-ed, Rubin listed three reasons why knew the ex-president would renege on his promise.

The first, Rubin writes is, "Trump has never been a reliable or helpful witness in his own defense." She cites colleague Steve Benen's November 7 op-ed in which he referenced when the MAGA hopeful "mistook an old picture" of E. Jean Carroll — who sued him for sexual assault — "for his ex-wife, Marla Maples," after claiming Carroll wasn't his "type."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Second, Rubin emphasizes "Trump's gag order likely played a role." She notes his "failure to resolve, much less, escalate his further appeal of the New York gag order before his scheduled testimony was the first sign he could not testify."

Furthermore, she adds during the ex-president's November 6 testimony, "at one point," lawyer Kevin Wallace "was so exasperated by Trump's off-topic fusillade that he simply waited for Trump to run out of gas and then asked, 'Are you done?'"

Last, the legal analyst writes, "Trump's prior turn as a witness did meaningful damage to his defense."

She notes, "Trump's testimony on Nov. 6 harmed his defense — even when he managed to stick to the substance. It is no exaggeration to say he gave the attorney general's team a veritable bouquet of quotes that support their case, not his own."

READ MORE: 'Nervous' Trump insiders forced to put out fires after his 'lethal' comments: analyst

Rubin emphasizes, "Within the first hour of his testimony, Trump made two critical admissions: 1) that he reviewed — and even corrected — his financial statements, which, despite his characterization that they were not 'badly needed,' he guaranteed were true and accurate in all material respects in order to obtain loans and insurance policies; and 2) that he was responsible for giving his accountants accurate information."

Additionally, Rubin notes, "I have long predicted this was how the defense case would end, not with a bang, but an expert. (Trump's purported silver bullet of an expert witness, New York University accounting professor Eli Bartov,has already testified over two trial days, and Tuesday, as he concludes his testimony, he will be the defense's ultimate witness.)"

Rubin's full op-ed is available here.