“The Man Responds Well to Flattery”: Lawyer Says Trump Will Blow His Defense if Prosecutors “Just Let Him Talk”

Gabriel RomanNov 11, 2023

Minute Read

Deborah Baum, a lawyer, shared her experience from a past legal encounter with Donald Trump. Politico featured her thoughts on Monday, revealing her strategy in handling Trump in a deposition. Baum was once up against Trump in a lawsuit concerning a restaurant owned by chef Geoffrey Zakarian.

Let Him Speak

Baum emphasized the effectiveness of allowing Trump to talk freely during the deposition. This approach, she believed, worked in her favor. “Just let him talk,” Baum said in the interview. “I got exactly what I wanted by letting him talk,” she told Politico, highlighting this as a critical tip for questioning him.

Trump’s Lack of Preparation Noted by Attorney

Editorial credit: Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock.

Baum detailed how Trump’s lack of preparation for the deposition was clear. She said, “He came in totally unprepared,” which played to her advantage. By being unprepared, Trump was more malleable, unwittingly offering responses that advanced Baum’s legal stance. This tactic of letting Trump’s unguarded answers lead the discussion proved to be important in the deposition’s dynamics.

Legal Uncertainties in Restaurant Business Highlighted

Image Credit: Eric Urquhart / Shutterstock.

The core of Baum’s legal argument revolved around the unpredictable nature of restaurant success, which Trump’s own words seemed to echo. Baum pointed out, “In that particular case, there were some legal issues we were dealing with in terms of the likelihood or the certainty of their losses as a result of the restaurant leaving.” Trump’s statement, “With a restaurant, you never know what you’re going to get. You never know,” unintentionally supported Baum’s case.

Baum’s Strategy to Sidestep Confrontation

Editorial credit: Drop of Light / Shutterstock.

Baum described her approach to engaging Trump, opting for a less aggressive tactic. She believed that being combative would not yield the results she needed. Instead, she opted for a more subtle strategy, one that involved flattering Trump to gain a psychological edge. “The man responds really well to flattery,” Baum said.

Praise as a Tool in Depositions

Editorial credit: Russ Vance / Shutterstock.

Flattery, Baum found, was a potent tool when dealing with Trump. “You flatter him, and he’s your best friend,” she revealed. This insight into Trump’s personality suggested that he could become more cooperative when he felt esteemed. This approach seemed to lower his defenses, making him more likely to share information helpful to Baum’s case.

Extended Legal Battles Spark Public Comment

Trump’s legal entanglements have prompted public discourse, with some expressing astonishment at the lengthy process. One person reflecting on the drawn-out legal battles with Trump expressed, “It’s a wonder we’re still here to talk about it.” This statement captures a sense of exasperation and disbelief at the resilience and complexity of these legal proceedings.

Defense Strategy Under Fire

Editorial credit: Joe Tabacca / Shutterstock.

Critics have questioned the defense’s approach, suggesting they lack a fact-based defense. “Trump team has NO viable defense based on facts. That is why they want to make this into a circus, giving the impression that the judge is biased. That is the whole strategy of Habba and Kise,” one comment read. This shows skepticism about the defense’s tactics.

The Risks of Trump’s Testifying

Some argue that Trump taking the stand could be a tactical error. “If I were on Trump’s defense team, I would walk if he insisted on taking the stand,” one observer advised. They implied that the courtroom might not be as forgiving as the business world for Trump’s usual strategies. They underscore the stakes are high, and the opposition may be too great.

The Downside of Overconfidence

A pointed critique of Trump’s demeanor surfaced, with an individual stating, “Such an embarrassingly small man. Indeed, let him run his mouth.” The feeling here is clear. They believe that Trump’s ego could lead to self-incrimination if he were to speak freely, so this may be a way for him to be found guilty.

Self-Incrimination Through Testimony

Regarding the strategy of allowing Trump to testify, one comment read, “This is the rope you give someone to hang themselves. It is a trial.” This metaphor suggests that providing Trump with the opportunity to speak at length could lead to self-inflicted damage. This is a tactic that some see as letting an individual’s own testimony become their undoing in the judicial process.

Questioning Trump’s Dependence on Supporters

The topic of Trump’s reliance on his supporters sparked interest, with one individual proposing a pointed question: “I wish some news reporter would ask Dump, ‘Do you NEED your cult base of supporters?’” This reflects a challenge to Trump’s image of independence and invulnerability, indicating how he would react to a suggestion of dependence on his fan base.

A Historical Perspective on Consequences

Editorial credit: James Andrews1 / Shutterstock.

A particularly severe view came through in one person’s comment: “A few hundred years earlier, and he would already have been shown the gallows.” This reflects a dramatic stance on accountability. They draw a parallel between past severe punishments and the consequences Trump faces, implying that he might have faced harsher penalties in another era.

Community Engagement in Trump’s Legal Narrative

The ongoing legal saga involving Trump has not just been a matter of courtrooms and legal briefs. It has actively involved the public sphere. As legal strategies and personal characteristics are debated, the public is clearly engrossed and vocal, contributing a diverse array of opinions to the complex narrative of Trump’s legal battles.

Examining Trump’s Legal Strategies

There’s also some discussion about Trump’s characteristic approach to litigation. Critics claim his method often involves exhausting the opposition’s resources. One individual emphasized, “His MO in business was to simply run the other side out of money, extending the legal process.” They highlight a tactic that might not be as effective when facing opponents with substantial legal funds.

Legal Expertise Versus Public Persona

The contrast between Trump’s public persona and the requirements of legal processes is often debated. “A knowledgeable attorney should be able to let this small mind defeat itself,” claimed one observer. They suggested that a wise legal expert could turn Trump’s confident behavior against him during cross-examination.

Public’s Fascination with Legal Drama

Editorial credit: mark reinstein/Shutterstock.

The public’s engagement with Trump’s legal dramas underscores the widespread fascination with high-profile litigation. Whether they’re legal experts or laypeople, many are drawn to the unfolding saga. This reflects on the possible outcomes and strategies in play. It is clear that many people are very interested in this case.

Reflections on Trump’s Leadership Style

Commenters also reflect on how Trump’s leadership style might translate into his legal defense. One person’s hypothetical question to Trump about needing his base’s support touches on the larger theme of dependency and control. These are themes that often feature in discussions about Trump’s approach to both politics and business.

Analyzing the Impact of Trump’s Legal Outcomes

The broader implications of Trump’s depositions and legal strategies are interesting. Observers are keen to analyze how the outcomes of such legal encounters could influence Trump’s future endeavors, both in business and politics. Discussions revolve around the notion that the results of these legal battles may set precedents that could affect Trump’s handling of lawsuits and negotiations going forward.