Why Judge Engoron was smart to let Trump 'simply throw tantrums' in court: analysis
Donald Trump was highly theatrical when, on Monday, November 6, he took the stand during the trial for New York State Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud case against the Trump Organization. The former president angrily slammed the trial as a politically motivated "witch hunt."
Justice Arthur Engoron's frustration with Trump and his attorneys was evident. The judge threatened, at one point, to remove Trump from the witness stand. But ultimately, he let the 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner rant and rave — which the Daily Beast's Shan Wu praises as a smart move in an op-ed published on November 7.
"Trump repeatedly criticized the judicial process itself, testifying that the case brought against him was 'unfair,' insulting New York State Attorney General Leticia James — who is bringing the case — and directly insulting the judge," Wu explains. "There were only hints of substance and relevance in Trump's responses. As expected, he relied heavily on the so-called disclaimer clause in the company's financial statements, the one which he had claimed in a previous deposition rendered the statements worthless and meaning nothing."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?
Wu adds, "He also took on the question of inflated valuations by asserting that — in his opinion — values were underestimated, insinuating that his own valuations were the ones to be trusted. Mostly, however, Trump simply threw tantrums…. By letting Trump talk without challenging him or trying to cut him off, Judge Engoron also countered the potential strategy of the Trump legal team to deliberately goad him into making statements that could appear biased and even provide grounds for mistrial."
Wu also argues that Kevin Wallace, a prosecutor in James' office, did a "solid job of not engaging in excessive fighting with Trump but simply taking him through questions."
"That's a tactic often used in grand jury investigations where prosecutors bring forward a witness and let them say whatever they want," Wu observes. "This fully previews their testimony and locks them in from changing their story later. In Trump's case, it also had the effect of likely shortening his testimony by simply letting him meander without giving him new issues to focus upon."
READ MORE: Judge Engoron 'pounds the table' and threatens Trump’s attorneys with gag order
Read Shan Wu's full Daily Beast op-ed at this link (subscription required).
