'Very Risky': Donald Trump's 'Word Salad' Courtroom Testimony Torn Apart on CNN

Donald Trump took the stand at his ongoing fraud trial in New York on Monday, November 6 — but his responses during questioning left legal experts and political commentators scratching their heads over his "risky" tactic.

Earlier this year, Judge Arthur F. Engoron found the 77-year-old liable for fraud for allegedly inflating the net worth of his properties in financial documents. However, Trump stuck by the story that his assets were actually worth much more than they reported.

"It is a very risky tack to take here," CNN legal analyst Elie Honig speculated. "He’s not even saying the values we submitted were accurate. He’s saying they were vastly understated, which is taking a very big swing."

Honig suggested that Attorney General Letitia James' office may be setting "a little bit of a trap" for Trump.

"Do you know or do you not know? Because on the one hand, he’s saying, well, we’re going to bring in the big bankers. They’re the ones who do everything," he continued. "On the other hand, he’s saying, but I know what it’s all worth. It’s worth a billion dollars, Mar-a-Lago, for example. So those two defenses are sort of in tension with one another."

Kate Bolduan claimed that Trump's arguments came out "like a word salad" on the stand before she read an excerpt of his testimony.

"'I thought the apartment was high. We changed it,' he said earlier. He said he thought that the values were off on his financial statements at times both high and low. Ultimately, he said, Mar-a-Lago was underestimated, as we’ve discussed, as we heard him say outside of court. And then he goes on, ‘I thought 40 Wall Street was very underestimated for its tremendous value,'" Bolduan said.

"The attorney, one of the state, Kevin Wallace, one of the attorneys, appeared visibly surprised when Trump said he perceived both high and low-valued assets on financial statements," she added, noting that he paused to review a transcript before asking Trump to "elaborate" on his meaning.

Legal analyst Karen Friedman Agnifilo pointed out that Trump was essentially saying that he was "familiar" with the paperwork in question.

"That’s very different than what Don Jr. and Eric said, right?" Friedman Agnifilo asked. "They were basically saying, well, that was somebody else. I’m not really sure."

"What Trump is saying, 'No, no, I knew I thought this was too high. I thought this was too low.' He’s admitting here that he was intimately involved in the evaluation," she said. "I think that is as significant as whatever his answer is of what the numbers are."

As OK! previously reported, Trump not only confused the attorney but he also frustrated the judge while on the stand. The 77-year-old referred to Engoron as a "Trump hater" and a "rogue," as well as calling the trial "unfair" in court.

"I beseech you to control him if you can," Engoran finally told a member of Trump's legal team. "If you can’t, I will. I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can."

Never miss a story — sign up for the OK! newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what OK! has to offer. It’s gossip too good to wait for!

Last week, Trump called the judge a "fraudster" and yet again claimed the case was nothing more than an attempt to interfere in the 2024 election.

"He is just doing this out of his personal 'Hatred of TRUMP,' his love of the publicity that this case is getting him, & his lack of respect for the Appeals Court," the ex-pres wrote via Truth Social. "Engoron is a wacko, who is having a great time endlessly sanctioning, fining, & pushing around TRUMP."