Trump's 'train wreck' testimony would have been shut down in a jury trial: legal expert

Donald Trump took the witness stand in his $250 million fraud lawsuit, but MSNBC's Chuck Rosenberg said the former president didn't do himself any favors in court.

Judge Arthur Engoron repeatedly admonished the twice-impeached ex-president to answer the questions as asked by prosecutors and stop giving "irrelevant" testimony more suited to a campaign rally than a courtroom, and the legal analyst told "Morning Joe" that Trump was trying to fight the law on two fronts.

"Things did not go well in court, not for Mr. Trump," Rosenberg said. "Look, he's really functioning, operating in two different venues. In court, he did poorly – his answers were rambling and incoherent. To the extent he's not answering questions, the judge can rightfully infer that the answers would not be helpful to Mr. Trump."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

Trump has fumed over the fact that the judge, and not a jury, will determine the fate of his family-owned business, which Engoron said was because neither party requested a jury trial, but Rosenberg said the ex-president was likely given a longer leash since no jurors heard his discursive answers.

"The judge is the trier of the facts," Rosenberg said. "Like, if you ask me did I steal a cookie from the cookie jar, and I tell you you're deranged and had a fraud, and this whole process is a sham and a witch hunt, you can logically conclude that I stole the cookie from the cookie jar. In that venue, Mr. Trump did really poorly, but there was another venue which he cares deeply about. It was the one outside the courtroom. I think for his supporters and his base, the combative Trump is what they love, what they saw, and what they got. You know, legally, no, it was a bit of a train wreck. Politically, time will tell."

"There was no jury in this particular case, so the judge can hear irrelevant answers and ignore them and still make a decision on the merits, which I trust this judge will do," Rosenberg added. "If a jury had been in the room, if the jury had been a trier of the fact, the judge would have had to really contain Mr. Trump much more than he did. Look, I grew up as a federal prosecutor in a district where I don't believe any of the judges would have permitted this nonsense. So a trial in front of a jury, No. 1, can look different than a trial in front of a judge. By the way, in a criminal case, and that's what remains for Mr. Trump in four instances, two federal and two state, in a criminal case, it is highly unlikely he gets on the stand. All this nonsense, all this rambling and incoherence, all this his idiosyncrasies, the things you saw in front of a judge is not something I think you're likely to see in a criminal case in front of a jury."

Watch the video below or at this link.

11 07 2023 06 18 06youtu.be