Every president is scrutinized frequently, their decisions and reactions dissected within the fine lines of newspapers and online articles. Equally as important as their bold policy decisions is their ability to listen to, and follow through with, sound advice. This is particularly evident when looking at former President Donald Trump’s approach to handling defamation and business fraud cases.
Trump found himself tackling two lawsuits simultaneously at one point – a business fraud case brought forward by Letitia James, and a defamation case by E. Jean Carroll. In a Catch-22 situation, the stance he needed to take for each was at odds with each other. This resulted in Trump choosing to assert his vast richness in the business fraud case, a fact that backfired in the defamation situation.
Per the Above The Law column, Trump was also noted to make unnecessary mistakes during the Carroll trial that seemingly ignored clear advice offered by his own legal counsel. He insinuated hostility towards the presiding judge through social media insults, and reportedly antagonized the jury through various antics.
Furthermore, Trump openly scoffed at the concept of humbling oneself to serve one’s own interests, adamantly refusing to appear contrite or apologetic, which could have potentially lowered the punitive damages to be paid.
While legal strategies are important in reading the landscape of the courtroom, there are larger implications – both political and societal – if a president appears to be unwilling to incorporate constructive advice into their response strategies. Trump’s decisions during his tenure saw confrontational exchanges with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and an impeachment trial spurred by his interactions with Ukraine.
The conclusion is sobering: Trump’s resistance to heed objectively sound advice was not strictly a legal impediment but extends to the national and international arena as well.
The question to pose for future elections is clear – do we want to elect a president who seems comfortable with ignoring advice that could better protect their personal interests, the nation’s reputation, and potentially impact strategic relationships on the global stage?