'Most ridiculous direct examination I’ve ever seen': Trump testimony bemuses experts

Legal analysts were quick to call the decision to put Donald Trump on the stand in the E. Jean Carroll damages trial absurd before it happened Thursday. Once it unfolded, they concluded it had earned Trump nothing — and likely worked against him.

While discussions were taking place about whether Judge Lewis Kaplan was going to allow Trump on the stand, the president began yelling about not being at the first trial, where he was ultimately found liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

"I wasn't at the trial! I never met this woman!" Trump yelled. The judge told him to keep his voice down.

"He’s on the boil," tweeted lawyer Luppe B. Luppen.

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance wondered how it would be possible to control what Trump would say during his testimony. He had been told to steer clear of anything that a court had already litigated — including the sexual abuse and the defamation claims.

"Trump has absolutely no self-control. But this Judge, an experienced jurist, is a match for that," Joyce Vance explained.

"It's clear Trump wanted to avoid the bloodbath of a cross-examination but wanted to say something — that he stands by deposition, which is hardly helpful. And this is what was worked out. Notice Kaplan's strict admonitions in advance — he handled Trump well, as no other judge has," said former prosecutor Harry Litman.

ALSO READ: Few Trumpers who embrace political violence understand its endgame

"We'll get the full details, but obviously Trump wanted to testify about all kinds of irrelevancies, Kaplan forbade it, and they agreed that he would just stand by his deposition, and Kaplan would be able to argue about the results from the first trial, where he wasn't present," he also said.

When Trump eventually took the stand, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti noted how badly his lawyer had done during this trial.

"It’s apparent that Alina Habba has never tried a case before," he said. "Her inexperience, combined with a client who is trying to subvert the judge’s rulings, is presenting a challenge for Judge Kaplan. He is clearly up to the task."

Civil rights lawyer Andrew Laufer asked: "Why would you expose your client on a damages-only trial and risk inflaming the jury with such nonsensical questioning?"

It took just 60 seconds for Trump to break the rules that were outlined by the judge, legal analyst Allison Gill observed, as he denied the allegations Carroll made and which had already been proven.

"Trump already breaks the very clear rules. No surprise," she said.

Once the three minutes of testimony had concluded, legal analysts agreed it was not only a waste of time, but accomplished nothing to benefit Trump.

Laufer called it: "The most ridiculous direct examination I’ve ever seen."

Former impeachment lawyer Norm Eisen explained that this trial is only the beginning.

"Get used to this — we will also be hearing it in multiple criminal trials this year," he posted online.

"I expect Trump will now go out and tell the press that the judge wouldn't let him talk and he's a victim — and he'll fundraise off that, and then post in all-caps on Truth Social about his victimness," Gill continued after court ended for the day.

In the New York fraud trial, Trump was able to testify but he was furious that he wasn't able to give his own statement during the closing statements. There were so few questions that Habba asked that Mariotti implied it may have been more about the idea of testifying than what was actually said that directed the decision to put him on that stand.