‘That’s Not The Case’: Fox’s Doocy and Eric Shawn Destroy Claims From Trump’s Panicked Last-Minute Trial Rants

Fox News host Steve Doocy and correspondent Eric Shawn teamed up to knock down a few claims from ex-President Donald Trump’s panicked last-minute rants before his trial wraps up.

The defense rested its case in the Stormy Daniels hush money-election interference trial last Tuesday, with closing arguments beginning after Memorial Day Weekend before the 34 felony counts go to the jury for deliberations.

Trump began ranting late into the night about the case to kick off Memorial Day Weekend and wrapped up Monday with a series of panicked rants as well.

Those rants included a debunked claim about a ruling by Judge Juan Merchan and this bitter lament about trial procedure: “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!”

On Tuesday’s edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy picked up on the latter complaint to tee up Shawn’s blunt and forceful fact-check of Trump’s rant:

STEVE DOOCY: Hey, Eric, before you go, I think it was on Truth Social in the last 24 hours. The former president seems upset that his lawyer, when it comes to closing arguments, his lawyer has to go first, and then the prosecution goes second.

Doesn’t the state always go last? That’s what he’s upset about.

ERIC SHAWN: Yeah, that’s New York law. Different states are different. He gave that posting, and that’s not the case.

Under the law, the defense goes first, then the prosecution goes.

He’s also claiming that the election expert, Brad Smith, was not allowed to testify. That is not true.

Smith’s testimony was restricted by the judge, but it was Trump’s defense attorneys– Trump’s own side decided not to call Smith the president, claiming something that is, again, false.

STEVE DOOCY: Okay.

AINSLEY EARHARDT: Thank you. 34 different counts. And, if he is acquitted, acquitted on all accounts, that would be good for Donald Trump, good for the Republican Party.

There could also be, as he mentioned, a hung jury. And the difference in those two is a hung jury. All it takes is one juror to say, I can’t make up my mind. I don’t know if he’s innocent or guilty. And then that could lead to a retrial. The prosecution could take this back.

LAWRENCE JONES: I guess, as you say, good for the Republican Party. I think also good for the country as well. People will be able to choose their candidate with no interferences from a judge.

Watch above via Fox & Friends.