Dem
51
GOP
49
We've slightly jumbled the details of the E. Jean Carroll case(s), so let's lay everything out right now, just to make sure everything is correct. There is, first of all, the case that has already been adjudicated in her favor. That one was based on the original act of sexual assault, followed by the defamatory remarks made by Donald Trump in 2022. It was also the second case filed by Carroll.
The FIRST case filed by Carroll is the one that is being adjudicated right now. It too is based on the original act of sexual assault, and on defamatory remarks made by Trump in 2019. Because he was president in that year, the current case was substantially delayed by arguments over... wait for it... presidential immunity, and whether it was the job of the Department of Justice to defend Trump. In the end, the delay backfired on Trump, in that it allowed the case to linger long enough for Carroll to amend it to include defamatory remarks made in 2023, following the resolution of the first to be adjudicated/second to be filed case.
The executive summary: Trump has already been popped for the things he said in 2022. He's about to get popped for things he said in 2019, and then in 2023. Everyone clear? Good.
Moving on to the schadenfreude, we will now be having a laugh or two at the expense of Trump's counsel. Recently, many of his lawyers have been fleeing for the hills. We wrote earlier this week about Joe Tacopina jumping ship; on that same day, Tacopina's partners—Chad Seigel and Matthew DeOreo—did the same. That's three lawyers gone in one day, which is quite a lot, even for an obnoxious client. It also means that Trump is left, at least in some cases, with substandard counsel. And by that, we mean people like Alina Habba.
Habba's deportment in court this week has been so unbelievably, face-palmingly bad that it reads like a sequel to Legally Blonde or My Cousin Vinny (except that in those movies, in the end, the bumbling lawyer ultimately proved to be competent). To start with, various court watchers say Judge Lewis Kaplan has ordered her to sit down at least fourteen times. He also ordered her to stand up at least once: "Ms. Habba, when you speak in this courtroom or any other courtroom you'll stand up."
Beyond that, Habba has made all sorts of amateurish mistakes (admittedly, some of the mistakes may be "mistakes"). She attempted to use evidence that had not been admitted as evidence, and did not seem to understand why that was a problem. She was warned in a sidebar not to raise questions about the believability of Carroll's account of being assaulted, and then promptly raised questions about the believability of Carroll's account of being assaulted, leading to a rebuke from the judge and an order to strike the question from the record. She attempted to use herself as an expert on White House operations, leading Kaplan to admonish her: "We're not going to have any representations. If you want to make representations, you can be called as a witness."
Kaplan is so fed up with Habba that he's turned the snark up to 10. When she tried to raise, for the umpteenth time, the request to adjourn for Trump's mother-in-law's funeral, he said: "The application is denied. I will hear no further argument on it." When she kept going anyhow, Kaplan cut her off and said: "None. Do you understand that word? Sit down." Later in the day, Habba tried to object to evidence being introduced by Carroll's counsel. This was the exchange:
Habba: Objection!
Judge Kaplan: Ground?
Habba: It's prejudicial.
Judge Kaplan: All evidence is prejudicial against the party it is offered against.
On another occasion, Habba believed she had caught Carroll in a "lie":
Habba: She said two different things about Montana.
Judge Kaplan: She said it's great and before she said, it's not boring. That's your difference?
Habba: I can ask another question.
Judge Kaplan: That would be a good idea.
Habba also pursued a line of questioning about Carroll's alleged high-flying lifestyle in the 1980s and 1990s:
Habba: You were a regular at Elaine's, right?
Carroll: Yes.
Habba: It's hard to get into, isn't it?
Judge Kaplan: It doesn't exist anymore. That's why it's hard to get into.
Habba's lawyering has been slammed by a great many legal experts, including at least one former Trump attorney.
One possible explanation for this is that Habba is incompetent. Another possible explanation is that she's just doing what her client wants her to do, namely turn the trial into a circus. For our part, we tend to favor a blend of these two explanations. That is to say, she's trying to do what Trump wants, but that sort of behavior is so unusual for an attorney, she's got no experience and is not very good at walking the line without crossing over it. Surely, Trump is lamenting the fact that his relationship with Michael Cohen collapsed, because Cohen was pretty good at this sort of stunt lawyering.
Time will tell if Trump pays the piper in his criminal trials. But it's certainly the case that, after decades of legal shenanigans, the rooster is coming home to roost in his civil trials. (Z)