"The Jury Will Disregard Everything Ms. Habba Just Said"
A swimsuit competition does not seem like the best way of obtaining competent legal representation, but I am not a lawyer.
“Somebody said to me, Alina, would you rather be – would you rather be smart or pretty? And I said, oh easy, pretty. I can fake being smart. . . . You have to be honest. It doesn’t hurt to be good-looking in this world, in the PR world, on TV. It doesn’t hurt, and when you’re good-looking, that’s great, but it can also mean people think you’re stupid or people think that Trump hired me because I was good-looking. That is absolutely not the case.”
— Alina Habba, PBD Podcast, January 4, 2024 (my emphasis)
Absolutely not!
It turns out that faking being smart is harder than it looks. Alina Habba — a graduate of Widener University Delaware Law School, which ranks 147th of 193 schools (in the lower 25% of accredited law schools) — couldn’t do it even once this week, in Donald Trump’s latest trial.
Habba was out of her depth, up the creek, in over her head, out of her league, in the weeds from the moment the court clerk first said: “All rise!” On Tuesday, she began her opening statement and within eight seconds — only seven words — she had violated Judge Lewis Kaplan’s order to not re-litigate the charges from the previous trial in which Trump was found guilty of sexually assaulting and defaming Carroll. (The judge in that case went out of his way to note that Trump “raped” Carroll, as the term “rape” is understood by the average person.)
Even by the low standards of the typical Trump lawyer, Habba’s ignorance and inability to lawyer was astonishing. She had no idea how to do anything. In brief:
She did not know how to introduce evidence; she did not know that you cannot read from a piece of paper that has not been admitted as evidence; she did not understand how to cross-examine a witness; she did not know how to form basic questions when questioning a witness; she did not know that, when questioning a victim of sexual assault or rape, blaming the victim for the attack does not often go over well with a jury (or any empathetic human being, really); she did not know what “hearsay” means; she did not know that when a lawyer objects to a question being asked by opposing counsel, she should stand up; she did not know that when she is done talking to the court, she should sit down; she did not know that the proper ways of addressing the judge is “Judge” or “your Honor”, not “sir”, and certainly not “Yeah” or “Sure”; she did not know that when the judge had ruled on an issue, you don’t keep arguing; she did not know that talking back to the judge and/or whining about his decisions is not considered wise; she did not know she should keep her client quiet during the proceedings; she did not understand the difference between “introducing” an item as a piece of evidence and “impeaching” a witness; and a bunch of other things.
Ron Filipkowski, a former federal and state prosecutor, tweeted:
Good Lord! Habba doesn’t know how to impeach a witness with a deposition transcript so the judge has to send the jury out to explain to her how to do it.
WHY OH WHY are cameras not allowed in courtrooms? A supercut of Habba’s fuck-ups would be amazing — and it would be about 30 minutes long!
On the morning of jury selection, Trump “mass attack[ed]” Carroll 32 times in 40 minutes on social media, further defaming her. At the end of Day 3, he went on a 26-post rampage against the woman he raped — sorry, one of the 26 women (that’s how many we know of; the actual number is much higher) who have credibly accused him of sexually assault and/or rape — attempting to shame and humiliate her and imply she deserved what happened.
Trump’s strategy is ripped from the pages of How To be A Rapist: blame the victim. His attorney in this trial, Alina Habba — who, we learned last month, befriended a woman who was sexually assaulted at one of Trump’s properties and was filing a lawsuit, told her she was a rape victim, tricked her into signing an illegal NDA drafted by her law firm, and then abandoned her — argued “that Carroll should not receive damages because, according to Habba, Carroll’s reputation was helped after Trump raped her and defamed her because it made her more famous”.
Trump whined about having to “defend myself against this woman’s fake story”, a lawsuit he called “attempted extortion”. Who wants to tell Trump that his chance to defend himself ended seven months ago, in May 2023, when a jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting and defaming Carroll and ordered him to pay her $2 million in damages connected to the assault and $3 million for defamation. (One report said that the $5 million has been paid.) Trump promised — and I hear he promised “very strongly” — that he would appear at that trial to “defend [him]self”, but to no one’s surprise he chickened out. Maybe that’s why he can’t remember, or maybe it’s the advancing dementia (coupled with tertiary syphilis). After that verdict, Trump promptly defamed Carroll a lot more, so she filed another defamation lawsuit, and here we are.
Trump has only himself to blame for these trials and the multi-million dollar penalty he will soon have to pay. Jose Pagliery (The Daily Beast) writes:
Trump brought the lawsuit on himself by falsely denying that he ever encountered Carroll (which a jury has already ruled that he did) and hiding for years behind presidential immunity . . . only to finally face this defamation trial after a jury already slapped him with a $5 million fine last year.
[Re Never meeting her: photos exist; when Trump was shown one of them, he immediately identified Carroll as Marla Maples, his second wife (“That’s Marla. That’s my wife.”) When corrected, he claimed the photo was blurry. It wasn’t.]
Trump whined that the judge hates him, is “abusive, rude and obviously not impartial”, a “BULLY”, “seething and hostile” — no, make that “extraordinarily hostile” — and he “suffers from a major case of Trump Derangement Syndrome”. Trump demanded that “this Complete and Total Election Interfering Witch Hunt” be ended. He claimed, “I have been considered an A-List celebrity for many decades”, so he could not possibly have raped her. (A-List?!? lol) Trump also shared several of Carroll’s tweets that mention sex — from almost 10 years ago — because, as Evan Hurst (Wonkette) wrote: “Trump is the type of guy who thinks that if a woman has ever spoken positively of sex, she must be lying when she says she was raped. Because he’s human excrement.”
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, January 18, 2024 (my emphasis):
Trump would rather be in courtrooms [where] he makes more headway with Republican voters by appearing as an aggrieved defendant . . . He also saves money, conserves energy and makes the media come to him . . .
A defendant who cared about winning a bench trial would not defy the judge’s orders and launch into a stream of unfounded accusations. Trump wants his base’s sympathy more than a reduced damage award or a verdict that goes his way on the remaining counts. . . .
[His conduct in the Carroll trial] was not a winning strategy for Trump. But it was a way of telling his supporters how little he thinks of Carroll (and, by extension, other accusers). It’s more important for him to convey contempt for his enemies than to drag himself into court to try to sway a jury. Satisfying his own emotional needs and playing to his cult appear to supersede legal considerations. . . . That has always been his style: delegitimize entities and defy the rules because he seems to consider himself above the law. . . .
When you boil it all down, you get a sense of how Trump treats the legal system (as he does the political system). It’s an illegitimate infringement on his right to do whatever he wants (absolute immunity). It’s a stage for victimhood appeals. It’s “proof” the “system” is out to get him.
Trump “seems” to consider himself above the law? Here is a rant that is less than two days old.
By the way, to witness Trump’s on-going descent into madness without going to Troth Senchal, try @TrumpDailyPosts. Plus, you’ll avoid seeing huge blowups of photos of foot fungus every five posts.) He’s seriously unhinged and the important trials (jail time) haven’t even started yet.
Here are four of Trump’s 32 completely rational and normal posts from Tuesday:
Shawn Crowley, Carroll’s attorney, asked the nine-member jury to impose a financial penalty that would be substantial enough to make Trump stop his incessant attacks, which, like clockwork, inspire his supporters to flood Carroll’s phone and email with hundreds of death threats, rape threats, suggestions to kill herself, and countless photos of dead and mutilated women. This abuse has been going on for years.
In her opening statement, Shawn Crowley told the jury:
[Y]ou’ll be asked to decide how much money Donald Trump should have to pay for what he’s done. You’ll also need to decide how much money he should pay to get him to stop doing it again . . . [While Carroll is not asking for a specific amount] we submit the number should be significant. Very significant. Donald Trump, after all, is a self-proclaimed billionaire. . . .
Members of the jury, it’s time to tell Donald Trump that this is wrong. It’s time to hold him accountable. It’s time to show him that in our system of justice, no one is above the law . . . 25 years after sexually assaulting Ms. Carroll, Donald Trump defamed her for speaking up, and then he did it again and again. He keeps doing it even now. It’s time to make him stop. It’s time to make him pay dearly for what he’s done, to pay enough to convince him once and for all not to do it again.
How much would Trump have to lose to stop targeting Carroll? Would $50 million do it? Maybe it would take $100 million? More than that? (Does Trump even have $100 million? Would he have to sell some properties to raise that amount?) Whatever the amount will be, it will be added to the amount Trump will have to pay in his New York business fraud trial. That should be announced by the end of the month and it might be as high as $370 million. Cha-ching!
Areeba Shah, Salon, January 17, 2024:
“The jury has the power to impose substantial punitive damages on Trump for raping Ms. Carroll, then branding her accusation as made-up and then repeatedly castigating her in public and social posts as crazy and ‘whacky,’” Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, told Salon. . . .
“The damages will be calculated from 2019 when the subject statements were made . . .” Los Angeles entertainment and libel law attorney Tre Lovell told Salon. “Also, Trump’s constant posting and tweeting about Ms. Carroll could have an effect on punitive damages, suggesting he is targeting her out of ill-will and spite.”
It’s possible that the court could “enjoin” Trump from repeating the statements found to be defamatory, but it’s not clear that Carroll is asking for this, Lovell added. Going forward, Trump is like a “walking slot machine for Carroll, and each time he repeats the defamatory statements, she pulls the lever and hits the jackpot.” . . .
[T]he court “may consider Trump’s failure to desist” as a factor in the awarding of punitive damages, David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University, told Salon. . . . “The court may need to think of punitive damages at a significantly higher level than perhaps we have ever seen in defamation cases. I think the parallel here is the recent Fox settlement with Dominion.” . . .
“The jury also must take account of the failure of the earlier award to deter him from repeating his wrongdoing, which is a critical factor in imposing punishment on a wrongdoer,” Gershman said. . . .
In this new proceeding, Carroll is claiming that Trump’s subsequent “public tirade” against her on social media . . . signals to the jury and judge that Trump has “not been restrained or deterred from his wrongful conduct” by the previous amount of damages . . .
“The jury may now determine that a much heavier monetary amount must now be necessary to shut him up,” Gershman said. . . . “It appears that hitting Trump with a far heavier monetary damage award may be the only thing to deter him and silence him.”
Carroll celebrated her 80th birthday last December. She no longer lives in New York City. She said she lives “in the mountains, in the woods, in a small cabin”, still in New York State, but refused to get any more specific than that. A gun she inherited from her father is kept loaded and close by. An electric fence surrounds her property and she has a rescued pit bull for additional protection. She remains extremely wary any time she leaves the house.
Trump was not happy to be in a room where most of the people were not paying attention to him. So he tried to remedy that on Tuesday. While Carroll was testifying about the assault, Trump acted agitated and made a big show of shaking his head and muttering loud enough for opposing counsel and the jury to hear him.
Trump whined “It’s a witch hunt” and “It really is a con job” and “This is false”. When a video of Trump telling lies about Carroll was played, he said: “It’s true”. At another point, he reacted to one of Carroll’s answers by sarcastically saying “she finally got her memory back”. (Q for Trump: How could Carroll “get her memory back” about an event you claim never happened?)
In other words, during the trial to determine how many tens of millions of dollars Trump will be forced to pay Carroll for publicly defaming her dozens of times, he was defaming her in real-time (after, of course defaming her almost three dozen times online that morning). And he would go on to defame her online and to the media at various points of the day on Wednesday and Thursday.
When Judge Kaplan warned that Trump that he could be ejected from the courtroom, Trump threw up his arms and replied, “I would love it”. (He’s probably already got the grifting email written and ready to blast out to his cult, telling them about how the mean and nasty judge/thug threw me out of court for no reason so please send your meager savings to your favorite self-professed billionaire rapist, ME!) Kaplan, who knows Trump loves any opportunity to play the victim, said: “I understand you’re probably very eager for me to do that because you just can’t control yourself.”
After Wednesday’s session, Trump called the trial a “hoax” and said that he should be awarded monetary damages, not Carroll.
“The jury will disregard everything Ms. Habba just said”
Igor Derysh, Salon, January 18, 2024 (my emphasis):
Kaplan repeatedly interrupted Habba’s questions, including when she began to read from a document that had not been formally entered into evidence, sending the trial to a recess.
“During which you should refresh your memory about how it is you get a document into evidence," Kaplan told the lawyer.
Habba later questioned Carroll about whether or not she deleted any emailed threats after receiving a subpoena and requested a mistrial citing “deleted evidence” while the jury was still in the room.
“Denied,” Kaplan said “The jury will disregard everything Ms. Habba just said.” . . .
“Can you imagine showing up to a trial and asking the trial court judge, ‘How do you suggest I proceed?’ because you don’t know the rules of evidence?” tweeted Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis. . . .
Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de le Vega warned that Habba’s performance would not help her sway the jury.
“Habba might think she’s doing a great job by performing for Trump, but she’s already succeeded in making the jury dislike her intensely. (I am 100% certain of that.)”, she tweeted. “Since the jury will be deciding the amount of damages, it would be a lot smarter to be as charming as hell.”
“A minor league job” was how former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb labelled Habba’s performance. “The judge was very patient with her,” he told CNN. “He gave her sort of two recesses or two opportunities to try to guide her through it himself, called a halt, and took a break with the hope that one of her colleagues could help her figure out how to do what it was that she intended.” . . .
“Alina Habba, she’s doing a few things. One, she’s doing the spectacle for her client, but two, she’s also doing it because she doesn’t know what the hell she’s doing,” MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang said Wednesday. “I am comfortable in saying that the lack of competence on the part of Alina Habba is glaringly obvious now. . . . She does not have the requisite trial skills . . . And yet, you get what you pay for, and that is exactly what’s happening to Donald Trump right now,” she said.
With Trump and lawyers, it’s more like you get what you don’t pay for, amirite?
But seriously. According to FEC records, Trump affiliated PACS paid Habba a little more than $2.5 million in legal fees between February 2022 and June 2023.
That’s how Alina Habba describes her position as Trump’s lawyer. She bragged at a far-right conference that a court had fined her $1 million for continuing to file lawsuits about cases that had already been decided.
Last summer, she called Trump “the most ethical American I know”.
Habba boasted that Trump does not need to prepare for any of his four trials. “Trump is not your average person, he’s incredibly intelligent. . . . What is he going to have to be prepped for, the truth?” By the way, Habba’s statement that Trump needs no time to prepare effectively destroyed the main pillar of his never-stop-delaying strategy at the same time Trump was frantically attempting to delay all of his trials, claiming he needed additional time to prepare.
Habba’s performance this week was such an embarrassing disaster, you’d think she was doing it on purpose so Trump would have a strong case on appeal for incompetence of counsel. Any adult of reasomnable intelligence with half dozen episodes of Law & Order under his belt could have done a better job.
As mentioned, Habba violated a judge’s order with the first seven words of her opening statement:
Habba: “President Trump defended himself when publicly accused —”
Judge Kaplan: “Don’t go much farther.”
Habba also asked for an adjournment of the trial (and apparently lied to the judge about what she asked the judge for), so Trump could attend his third mother-in-law’s funeral. Trump was not required to be in court, so nothing was preventing him from going wherever he wanted to go.
Ms. Habba: “We are asking again, your Honor, for a brief one-day adjournment so my client can be here, just like he flew at the wee hours of the night to be here today.”
The Court: “You said you’re asking again for a brief one-day adjournment. That is the first time you’ve done that, notwithstanding statements made elsewhere —
Ms. Habba: “That’s not true, your Honor.”
The Court: “— to the contrary. You asked me for a week’s adjournment. I denied it. . . . I’m not stopping him from being there. . . . The application is denied. I will hear no further argument on it. None. Do you understand that word? None. Please sit down.”
Ms. Habba: “I don’t like to be spoken to that way. And we are going to be here for several days.”
The Court: “It’s denied. Sit down.”
At one point, Judge Kaplan had the jury taken out of the courtroom so he could slowly walk Habba through the necessary steps to properly introduce a piece of evidence into the record.
Judge Kaplan: Show it to her. Ask if she recognizes it.
Habba: Do you recognize it?
Carroll: Yes.
Judge Kaplan: It’s not marked. It should be marked. Do it appropriately. Do it overnight. They. Need. To. Be. Premarked.
Good. Fucking. Lord.
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press was able to tweet a near transcript in real time every day of the trial — an amzing amount of work. From Day 1 (my emphasis):
Habba: Ms. Carroll, you were not quiet in the 1980s, right?
Carroll: Right.
Habba: But after 25 years you brought this suit against the sitting President?
Judge Kaplan: You’re running the repeat key too often, Ms. HabbaHabba: You did a watch party with Kathy Griffin?
Carroll: Yes.
Habba: She held up the severed head of Donald Trump?
Carroll: Yes.Habba: You have a gun — do you have a license?
Carroll: No.
Habba: Are you aware that you have to have a licence —
Judge Kaplan: Don’t even start.Habba: So was lying to Carol Martin appropriate?
Carroll: Yes. Her daughter was scared. So I said I had not received threats.
Habba: So you lied when you said no threats —
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection. That wasn’t the testimony.Habba: Have you deleted text message and not just emails?
Carroll: When I see threats I delete them.
Habba: Can we have a sidebar?
Judge Kaplan: No.Habba: Ms. Carroll, have you ever said anything you regretted on national television?
Carroll: Yes —
Carroll's lawyer: Can we have a sidebar?
Judge Kaplan: Yes.Habba: Did you say Trump?
Carroll’s lawyer: What does she mean?
Habba: She said she didn’t like saying his name. That’s a lot of appearances for someone who doesn’t want to say Trump
Carroll's lawyer: Objection
Judge Kaplan: Sustained. That's argumentative.
Habba: Didn’t you testify you don’t like talking about President Trump?
Carroll's lawyer: Objection.
Judge Kaplan: Sustained.Habba: Many people called you a liar before the President made his statement --
Carroll's lawyer: She's not asking a question.
Habba: I wasn't finished. It says, “You’re a pathetic old hag”
Judge Kaplan: It's not in evidence.
Habba: I'm trying to get it in
Judge Kaplan: No, we are not going to read out loud a document not yet in evidence. We are going to take a break right here to 3:30 and you're going to refresh your memory about how you get a document in.Habba: That’s a lot in today’s dollars, right?
Carroll's lawyer: Objection.
Judge Kaplan: You’re going to have to be more specificHabba: When you were on the cover of New York Magazine, how much was the dress you were wearing?
Carroll's lawyer: Objection!
Judge Kaplan: Sustained.RW: Let's show this—
Habba: Objection
Judge Kaplan: Ground?
Habba: It’s prejudicial.
Judge Kaplan: All evidence is prejudicial against the party it is offered againstRW: How much do you earn?
Carroll: About --
Habba: Objection, specify the year.
Judge Kaplan: That’s a subject for cross examination.Carroll: Right after the trial he went on CNN Town Hall and lied again.
RW: What is this?
Carroll: A Truth Social about me. A video posted by Donald Trump.
Habba: We will be—
Judge Kaplan: No announcements.Carroll: I thought I’d get my reputation back after winning the first trial. But Donald Trump went on TV—
Habba: Objection. This is not part of this case
Judge Kaplan: No speeches, just one word. Overruled.
RK: We got interrupted mid-answer.
Carroll: He lied againRK: And this book?
Carroll: It's about what women think —
Habba: Objection, vague. What women think —
Judge Kaplan: Ms. Habba, when you speak in this courtroom or any other courtroom you'll stand upJudge Kaplan: Substained.
RK: Where did you grow up?
Carroll: Indiana. My mother was a volunteer for the Republican Party
Habba: Objection, relevance.
Judge Kaplan: Background.
Habba: You ruled no politicsRK: Has Mr. Trump continued to lie about you?
Carroll: He lied Sunday, and yesterday.
Habba: Objection — non responsive, and not at issue here.
Judge Kaplan: Certainly relevant to damages. Overruled.
Also from early on Day 1:
From Day 2 (I think):
From Day 3, including Lee’s first tweet of the morning’s session (my emphasis):
Habba: I was asking you about the five hour gap—
Judge Kaplan: Ms. Habba, five hours have not been established. . . .Habba: The White House statement was not President Trump’s statement, right?
Carroll: It was not.
Habba: You are not suing about the White House statement, or the Cut —
Judge Kaplan: This is not clear.
Habba: I’m trying to clear it up.
Judge Kaplan: Let’s clear it up — Ms. Carroll, in The Cut, it said President Trump denied, you’re not suing on that?
Carroll: I am not.
Judge Kaplan: You are suing about what Mr. Trump said, the second time, on June 22, right?
Carroll: Yes.
Judge Kaplan: Now it’s clear as a bell. Go on, Ms. Habba.Habba: And this, is this a reply to your tweet?
Carroll: Yes.
Habba: This person is called Power To the Polish [like, shoes]
Judge Kaplan: The person probably meant Polish [the country]Judge Kaplan: Do you have many more of these?
Habba: I have six more.
Judge Kaplan: I’ll admit them if there is no objection. But you’ve taken enough time on this.
Habba: May I be heard?
Judge Kaplan: No.
Habba: I can’t ask about them? With all due respect —
Judge Kaplan: With. All. Due. Respect — when I rule, you go on.
Habba: So do you —
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection.
Judge Kaplan: Sustained. Stricken.
Habba: On what basis?
Judge Kaplan: Move on.Habba: Wouldn’t you agree that negative tweets are not necessarily tied to the President’s statement?
Carroll: They follow Donald Trump. They want to emulate him.
Habba: I should [showed] you early tweets—
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection
Habba: Why do you believe that? How can they emulate if they were before?
Carroll: They are standing up for the man they admire.
Judge Kaplan: Ms. Habba, move on.Habba: Your Substack was popular as soon as you started it in 2021?
Carroll: It’s a lot of work.
Habba: You make a lot—
Judge Kaplan: Ms. Habba, this is Evidence 101.Judge Kaplan: Ms. Carroll, what was your gross income in 2023?
Carroll: $70,000. But now more, I write more —
Habba: How many subscribers?
Judge Kaplan: That was definitely asked yesterday.
Habba: Number of subscribers?
Judge Kaplan: 1,800. Move on.
Lee reported Habba’s cross-examination of Carroll on Day 3 included a string of 10 consecutive sustained objections from Carroll’s attorneys. Probably not a record, but still hilarious! I count 10 sustained objections in this run of consecutive tweets, so this might be it.
4:16
Habba: Do you have social security?
Carroll: Yes.
Habba: Do you have a pension?
Carroll: No. But I do have stocks.
Habba: How much?
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection, Your Honor.
Judge Kaplan: Sustained.4:17
Habba: Do you consider yourself a financially successful person?
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection!
Judge Kaplan: Sustained
Habba: Did you publish a text asking if a person would have sex with Donald Trump for $17,000—
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection
Judge Kaplan: Sustained4:18
Habba: You testified you were upset because certain tweets made you appear promiscuous, correct?
Carroll: Correct.
Habba: Did you post sexually explicit tweets?
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection
Judge Kaplan: Sustained.4:20
Habba: I would like to offer DX 80—
Carroll's lawyer: Objection, Your Honor.
Judge Kaplan: Sidebar4:28
[Back from sidebar]
Judge Kaplan: The objection is sustained. It’s remote in time and of dubious value — and prejudicial.
Habba: How about DX 44? What is this?
Carroll: A tweet.
Habba: I move to admit.
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection.
Judge Kaplan: Sustained.4:35
Habba: You wrote, How do you know if your sexual advance is unwanted until you actually advance it — is this still up?
Carroll: Yes.
Habba: This says, Show the man what you like or he will regret he even HAS a penis —isn’t this like —
Objection. Sustained.4:37
Habba: What does this mean, What can be done about the penis?
Carroll: It’s a philosophical question.
Habba: Discussing penises?
Carroll: Yes, we discussed penises.
Habba: DX 88.
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection. This is 2010.
Judge Kaplan: Sustained.Habba: And you’ve been on left leaning platforms?
Carroll’s lawyer: Objection.
Judge Kaplan: Sustained.
Habba: They are left leaning?
Judge Kaplan: Did you not hear me?
Habba: You went on TV?
Carroll: To say we’d won this milestone case.
One more:
Judge Kaplan: You are asking to re-open the direct.
Habba: No, I will look it up —
Judge Kaplan: You do that.
Habba: I would like to go one by one, there are only six.
Judge Kaplan: You will not go one by one.
Habba: I preserved.
Judge Kaplan: You think you did.
Judge Kaplan was probably punch-drunk by the end of the day. Here are a couple of his statements during the questioning of a damages expert by Michael Madaio, Trump’s other attorney:
Madaio: Prof Humphreys, can I show you this as a demonstrative —
Judge Kaplan: Are you offering it?
Madaio: I don’t think it’s been provided —
Judge Kaplan: Excuse me. Any objection?
Carroll’s lawyer: No.
Judge Kaplan: You may display it. . . .
Madaio: So you in first report you said —
Judge Kaplan: So you’re now reading from the report you don’t want to put in, is that what we’re doing?Madaio: Your Honor, I’d like to ask about the next ones.
Judge Kaplan: I don’t think it’s going to happen.Madaio: What about these positive comments from Alyssa Milano?
Crowley: These are after the verdict in the first case, and not part of this case
Judge Kaplan: Get onto something relevant.
Madaio: Did you consider if Ms. Carroll makes more money now?
Judge Kaplan: No. You can argue that in closing. This is a cross-examination.Madaio: Your estimate has a $10 million spread.
Humphreys: I don’t think one time would be enough.
Madaio: Have you ever executed a reputation repair program?
Humphreys: Never.
Madaio: You have no real world experience?
Judge Kaplan: There was birth, adolescence. Those are real world experiences.
Man, his first drink on Thursday evening must have been a strong one.
Brett Meiselas (Meidas Touch) stated the simple truth:
At times, it not only appeared that Habba had never tried a case in her entire life, but also seemed like she forgot to attend class entirely while in law school. . . . The incompetence of Alina Habba during this trial is simply staggering.
“How do you suggest I proceed?”
(MSNBC, January 18, 2024)
This post is long, so what’s the difference if it’s a little longer. Some Twitter reactions I found amusing:
Alina Habba you're dumber than a soup sandwich
Trump had a strenuous objection, and they needed to bring out the wet wipe guy to clean it up. [explanation]
“Excuse me your honor, but my client informed me proof would not be needed.”
This is a shit show. . . . She literally has no idea what she is doing.
I think even “shit show” has a standard she’s not reaching
And this is just for monetary damages. I can’t wait until she’s responsible for avoiding a prison sentence.
[judge announces a break] Good strategy to break. Plenty of time to change careers before 9:30am tomorrow.
I once saw one public defender object to his co-counsel’s question. But other than that in 40 years [as] a trial attorney, I cannot recall seeing a lawyer make a bigger fool of themselves, especially in a high profile case.
One of my favourite quotes from yesterday was when habba was floundering and asked Judge Kaplan whether she should ask a question “that would be a good idea” replied the judge. It’s like a grown up having to coach a 4 year old...
it turned out trump didn’t need to defend himself to have a fool for a lawyer
She’s going to cost him a fortune.
He doesn’t have a fortune!
This is when you wish the judge would forget his inside voice and let loose.
Dean of widener university law school regretting a certain admission decision.
The Meidas Touch Network posted lengthy recaps of all three days:
Day 1 here and here; Day 2 here and here; Day 3 here.
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is never better than when he’s reporting horrible news about Donald Trump. You can feel the wonderful waves of pure schadenfreude flowing through the screen.
Day 1: Alina Habba Is The ‘Worst Trump Lawyer To Appear In Court So Far’
Day 2: Trump’s Court Outbursts Are ‘The Last Thing Competent Trump Lawyers Would Want’
Day 3: Judge Schools Trump Lawyer On ‘Evidence 101’
That’s the headline above Evan Hurst’s wrap-up at Wonkette, which ends with some sage advice for the jury: