Here’s a typical Miranda warning:
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court. With these rights in mind, are you still willing to talk with me about the charges against you?"
Here’s a more detailed explanation of Miranda:
The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.
Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right. This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights. From The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
As noted in Think Progress Trump made two costly legal errors during unhinged Fox & Friends interview.
Legal eagles can look at the ramifications of the Trumpian self-aggrandizing, blustering, witch hunt accusations, and his defensive Tweets and statements which could be, or are likely to be used against him whether in court or a Senate impeachment trial.
I look through the eyes of a psychotherapist who sees Trump as having an intractable untreatable personality disorder — actually, it is a combination or constellation of symptoms, traits, behaviors, and characteristics often described as malignant narcissism. (My emphasis added)
Malignant narcissism, while described somewhat differently by various authors, can be succinctly defined as “an extreme form of antisocial personality disorder that is manifested in a person who is pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation, and with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism“. With the exceptions of ‘healthy narcissism’, narcissism in adults is generally looked upon as a negative personality flaw. However, malignant narcissism is worth differentiating as it is cause for serious alarm when it is part of someone’s personality make- up.
Wikipedia defines malignant narcissism as “a psychological syndrome comprised as an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, and aggression and sadism. Often grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines organizations they are involved in, as well as dehumanizing the people they associate with”. -— * Narcissism is “malignant” (i.e. dangerous or injurious) when it takes the already negative characteristics of narcissism to even greater excess. * A malignant narcissist views himself (75% are male) as genuinely superior to other people and believes that others are insignificant, disposable, and that he is justified when he manipulates and exploits them. * This belief system is a result of the malignant narcissist’s complete lack of empathy. It is also a defining characteristic of psychopaths and sociopaths; in much of the literature the terms malignant narcissist, psychopath or sociopath are used interchangeably. All three lack empathy and therefore cannot truly care about others and are unable to form a conscience with humane qualities. Many authors and researchers in the field consider psychopaths/sociopaths/malignant narcissists as individuals without any conscience. They are considered to be in a category called Antisocial Personality Disorder although malignant narcissism has not been an official diagnosis; it has been more of a theoretical category.
From The Narcissistic Life
Not everyone with this disorder has severe problems controlling their impulses. Trump does. He speaks or Tweets out of angry defensiveness and ends up in his arrogance aiding the legal cases currently in the works against him.
Trump believing he is above and beyond the law stems from his extreme narcissism, but it also is somewhat delusional. He will keep implicating himself through contradictions and provable lies. He already admitted to breaking the law in the Access Hollywood tape. He may do this again.
Trump's reality testing is surely impaired because he keeps giving ammunition to those who are making legal cases against him (the courts of law), and to the non-Fox media (the court of public opinion).
To answer the question I pose in the title: No.