Trump's Needling of Judge May Be Strategic

Donald Trump had a testy day in court on Monday, lashing out not only against New York Attorney General Letitia James but also state Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron. "I'm sure the judge will rule against me, because he always rules against me," the former president said. The judge got testy, too, at times admonishing Trump and ordering his attorneys to rein him in. Given that this is a non-jury trial, why would Trump make a point to antagonize the judge? "There are only two explanations," Case Western Reserve University law professor Kevin McMunigal tells the BBC. "One is Trump just can't control himself. Or two: Maybe this is something he has thought out." Details and related coverage:

• In regard to the second explanation, McMunigal theorizes that Trump and his legal team figure their cause is hopeless and are trying to improve their odds for an appeal. "I think he is trying to goad the judge into doing something he can argue on appeal shows prejudice on his part," he says. Engoron, after all, already has ruled that Trump committed fraud, with the trial essentially about determining penalties.
• Rolling Stone reported on this theory as well, quoting sources who say it has credence. "When a defendant honestly believes he can't possibly get a fair trial from the judge, one of the tactics is to antagonize the judge to a point of causing reversible errors," says former Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz. "I call it the Chicago Seven disruption strategy," he adds, referring to the famous case of which he was a part. "Abbie Hoffman provoked Judge Hoffman to such a degree that the judge made mistake after mistake. And courts of appeal often reverse convictions or verdicts when the judge has made serious errors."
• In his Washington Post analysis, Aaron Blake doesn't go that far, but he does think Trump is deliberately "bulldozing the legal process." As he has done in other cases, Trump is "seemingly daring judges" to take "severe action," perhaps by finding him in contempt of court or even sending him to jail. But Engoron did neither, instead striking Trump's comments from the record when he deemed them irrelevant. Not that it was a failure for the former president. "Part of what Trump accomplished," writes Blake, "was setting a tone for his other cases, including the criminal ones. Nothing will come easy when you go after Trump."
• Aside from the courtroom theatrics, did Trump help or hurt his case in terms of fraud? Here, the former president was far more careful, writes Kate Christobek in the New York Times. He "acknowledged playing a role in preparing his financial statements, saying that he looked at them and occasionally had suggestions," she writes. "But he also distanced himself from the documents" and pinned the blame on accountants and Trump Organization financial execs. Trump also sought to minimize the significance of the documents, citing their disclaimers, and continued to insist that some of his assets were undervalued, not overvalued.

(More Donald Trump stories.)