There's a difference between considering details that have been entered into the record by the parties, and saying "oh I saw X in the newspaper". I assume in that case the plaintiff took the President's statements and put it in their filings.
But the judge wasn't using the newspaper report as part of his consideration. He was just offering it up as something that the defendant should be willing put into the court record (instead of taking the Fifth). The fact that it appeared in a paper is, OTOH, clear-as-day evidence that stuff is not being shown to the court, which he's saying has some value as a datapoint on its own (irrespective of the content).