Trump reluctantly abides by legal protocols while expressing discontent

The judge presiding over Donald Trump's fraud trial in New York faced a difficult task on Wednesday: finding a way to control the former President's anger, outbursts, and tendency to disregard rules. This predicament has perplexed the political sphere for quite some time.

During an unprecedented court session, Trump was compelled to testify about his actions, potentially providing a preview of what lies ahead in the four upcoming criminal trials that will undoubtedly further divide the nation during this election year.

The judge in New York reprimanded the former most powerful man in the world, claiming that he lacked credibility. This unexpected turn of events for Trump is a clear message that nobody is exempt from the law. As a defendant, Trump is now restricted in expressing himself and using his influence. This not only affects the ongoing trial but also foreshadows a series of upcoming trials next year, as he remains the leading candidate for the 2024 GOP nomination.

On Wednesday, October 25, at the New York Supreme Court, the civil business fraud trial of former President Donald Trump took place, with Trump positioned in the center and his defense attorneys, Alina Habba, on the left.

Seth Wenig/Pool/AP

Inside the courtroom as Donald Trump is forced to take the stand, is fined and then storms out

Trump's ability to fuel public anger, distort realities, and manipulate the truth has allowed him to persist despite facing two impeachments and an election loss. However, the fact-driven setting of the courtroom may put a halt to this.

Trump's simmering rage

During the fraud trial, Trump's frustration seemingly escalated on Wednesday. Firstly, he made what seemed to be a new attack on the judges clerk, defying a gag order. Trump claimed that Judge Engoron was biased and had a "very partisan person sitting alongside him." As a result, the judge called a hearing to investigate the comment and ultimately fined Trump $10,000 for violating the gag order that prohibited him from targeting court staff. Trump denied the accusation, stating that he was referring to his former associate, Michael Cohen, who was also seated next to the judge while testifying against him.

Trump had previously been fined for breaking the gag order, and just last week, he received a $5,000 penalty for refusing to remove a social media post that targeted Engoron's clerk. Engoron warned Trump that if he repeated this behavior, the consequences would be even harsher - a reprimand that Trump, who has always been the commanding presence in any room, seldom encounters.

The fines do not have a significant impact on someone as wealthy as Trump, even if his fortune is not as large as he claims, which is a central issue in this case. These amounts are unlikely to silence a former president who is accustomed to speaking his mind. However, they provide a glimpse of the potential consequences that the legal system could impose in multiple trials - relating to his business, efforts to overturn the 2020 election, hoarding classified documents, and making hush money payments to an adult film star - all of which will intertwine with his presidential campaign in the coming year. Trump consistently denies any wrongdoing in all ongoing cases.

Later on, Trump once again displayed dramatic behavior, angrily storming out of the courtroom when the judge refused to dismiss the case due to conflicting testimony from Cohen regarding whether his former boss instructed him to manipulate financial statements. "I'm leaving," Trump declared as he swiftly exited through the courtroom's large doors. Contrary to the Trump team's assertion that Cohen was a crucial witness, Engoron firmly rejected their motion, stating, "There is sufficient evidence in this case to fill this entire courtroom." (As CNN's Jeremy Herb and Lauren del Valle observed in a report from the courtroom, Cohen later clarified that Trump did not directly ask him, but rather implied it in a manner reminiscent of a "mob boss.")

Trump's tendency to constantly provide commentary to reporters during the non-televised case indicates that he poses a significant challenge for attorneys. This pattern may persist in his future trials, potentially leading to further complications. However, his behavior aligns with his approach of utilizing his fame and prominent public image to shape public perceptions. While lawyers present their arguments inside the courtroom, Trump conducts his own public trial in the corridor. "We are being treated unjustly here," Trump stated on Wednesday. "This is a highly unfair situation."

Nevertheless, unlike his previous experiences as a business tycoon and president, Trump's outbursts are ineffective in achieving his desired outcomes since the court's customs and legal constraints are unaffected by emotional and political arguments. Elie Honig, a senior legal analyst at CNN, noted that Trump's legal team may engage in an aggressive cross-examination of Cohen, but inconsistencies in testimony do not automatically result in the termination of a case. "It does not signify the end of the game, let's wrap things up," Honig explained.

The transformation of courtroom defenses into a political campaign is evident in Trump's counter-narrative. His purpose is to strengthen his overall campaign strategy by portraying himself as a victim of a legal system manipulated by President Joe Biden, ultimately sabotaging his chances of winning the White House in 2024. This approach has proven powerful, as he outperforms other candidates in the GOP primary and successfully generates funds through increased contributions, which are then utilized to cover his legal expenses. Furthermore, Trump's delivery of provocative one-liners ensures his continuous presence in the media, effectively overpowering his competitors in the campaign.

Engoron isn't the only judge grappling with how to handle the rule-breaking Trump. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal election subversion trial in Washington, faces a similar dilemma. In order to protect witnesses, court staff, and prosecutors from Trump's social media attacks, she has temporarily halted her previous gag order. This decision is pending briefs on Trump's request to pause the order while his appeal is in progress.

However, prior to implementing the measure, Chutkan had cautioned Trump that his status as a criminal defendant comes with restrictions on what he can say about the case. "He doesn't have the freedom to say and do whatever he wants," Chutkan informed Trump's lawyers in court earlier this month. In response to the conflict, the former president's legal team argues that Chutkan and the Biden administration's Justice Department are attempting to silence him in order to suppress his presidential campaign.

Trump received unexpected support on Wednesday when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Washington, DC chapter filed an amicus brief in favor of the former president. They argued that the wide-reaching nature of the order violates his First Amendment rights. However, prosecutors countered by requesting Judge Chutkan to reinstate the order. They argued that Trump's recent social media posts, such as his Truth Social post about former chief of staff Mark Meadows, show his disregard for potential witnesses.

Throughout his business and political career, Trump has consistently demonstrated a sense of impunity, allowing him to act and speak without repercussions. Now, he is employing this convention-defying entitlement as the basis for his defense in his legal cases.

Content must be written in English.

The Trump team asserts that his attempts to overturn the election in the federal election subversion case were part of his official duties, making him immune from prosecution for any actions taken while in office. Special counsel Jack Smith disagrees, arguing that this would essentially grant a sitting president the ability to engage in illegal behavior without any fear of consequences.

During his time in office, Trump often argued that his authority as president was absolute, declaring that there should be no checks on his behavior. In April 2020, during a coronavirus briefing at the White House, he stated, "When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total, and that's the way it has to be." Additionally, in a speech in Washington in 2019, he falsely claimed that the Constitution, designed specifically to prevent unchecked power, granted him unlimited authority. He asserted, "I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

If Trump regains the presidency in November 2024, his flawed constitutional arguments imply that his promised second term, focused on "retribution," would be even more unlawful than his initial term. He has already indicated his intention to utilize the legal system to pursue his adversaries.

"There will be no restraints," said former Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming who bravely opposed Trump and paid a price in her political career. She made this statement to Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.

For now, Trump is finding that there are guardrails in the legal system. But if he becomes president again, all bets are off.