Judge Arthur Engoron's decision to let Donald Trump argue, "bloviate" and shatter the normal restrictions on testimony in his Manhattan courtroom was a shrewd move according to one legal analyst who predicted the transcripts will kill any chance of a successful appeal by the former president's lawyers.
Speaking with MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart, legal analyst Catherine Christian agreed with the host that Trump "acted the fool" during his testimony in the $250 million financial fraud civil suit filed against him and his Trump Organization.
"This acrimonious back and forth between Judge Engoron and Trump, is this going to be a factor on appeal?" Capehart asked his guest.
"It will be a factor on appeal," the legal analyst quickly replied. "But what Judge Engoron did, I thought very well, when Donald Trump acted a fool at the beginning, the judge was getting upset and engaging with him, and then suddenly stopped and let him — let Donald Trump just go on and bloviate and say irrelevant things."
"Why? Because there was not a jury there," she continued. "There was no jury that you had to protect from hearing prejudicial irrelevant testimony. In a jury trial, the judge would have to constantly have the jury removed from the room, and warned the defendant. In this case, I think the judge decided, 'Do you know what? There is no jury here. I'm the decider, I'll let the defendant go on and on, to a limit. and so he can't say on appeal I was cut down, I wasn't allowed to say what I wanted to say,' because the appellate court will look and see what actually the defendant said, and most of it was irrelevant."
"It was just a puffing up his brand, as his kids did, when they were called as witnesses on their own case," she added. "So the judge, very wisely, just let him go: there is no jury here, I don't have to worry about the jury, let him go."
Watch below or at the link.
MSNBC 11 18 2023 09 31 19 youtu.be
