“Glaringly obvious” incompetence on display as judge tells jury to “disregard everything Ms. Habba just said”
Trump lawyer Alina Habba struggled through her cross-examination of E. Jean Carroll on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is overseeing the defamation case against the former president, repeatedly admonished the attorney for running afoul of his court rules and general procedures.
Prior to Carroll’s testimony, Habba requested an adjournment so that Trump could attend his mother-in-law’s funeral.
“The application is denied. I will hear no further argument on it. None. Do you understand that word? None. Please sit down,” Kaplan, a Bill Clinton appointee, told Habba about the motion that he already denied.
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.
I don’t think it’s on purpose, though I agree she’ll go on to do grape [sic] things as a blonde muppet in the Conservative griftosphere. I read the transcripts yesterday, and based on her performance, she was using the questions to lead to:
…both of which she attempted in this same fucking trial, like she thought she was Phoenix Wright. The best part, though, is when she objected to evidence presented. A paraphrase:
She literally tried the “because it’s damaging to my case” defense! ROFL
Right, you are evaluating her actions from the perspective of a lawyer who is trying to get the best outcome for their client within the legal framework of a trial. But that is not her goal.
Her goal is to make her client look like he’s being persecuted. She doesn’t care if her arguments are accepted by the judge. In fact, she would prefer the judge to go nuclear and lose his temper, because her client can use that to his advantage.
Trump is operating the same way. He practically begged the judge to throw him out of the courtroom. He got away with it because the judge understands exactly what Trump is doing. Trump would have used that expulsion to fundraise off of. He wants the courts mad at him, because he believes he can get votes out of it.
The judge and Trump literally had an exchange in court the other day confirming what you are saying.
Can judges not order people to be gagged? I thought that was a thing?
The problem is that Trump has successfully turned any form of accountability into a campaigning and fundraising opportunity. Everybody insisted that his trials would sink his campaign, and they’ve done nothing but bolster it. His court appearances now are little more than glorified campaign rallies. And once Trump realized that not even court proceedings are enough to rattle his base, he has been exploiting that ever since.
He doesn’t care about the outcome of this or any other trial any more, except for the SC case that would effectively remove him from the ballot. All he cares about is turning the court cases into circuses he can fundraise off of, and stalling for as long as possible until he wins a 2nd term in office and just makes all of it go away (Yes, even the state stuff, because he’d be in a position to say "you’ve made your decision, now let’s see you enforce it.)
And the thing is, there’s a non-zero chance he very well may get his wish
Not white people. Duh.
Wealthy people. Broke White people get fucked by the courts too.
I think it can be both. She’s trying to throw the case out (because that eats into “valuable” campaigning time) and she’s also trying to make a circus so they can claim persecution, both of which she is failing spectacularly at.
Ultimately, he’ll lose no votes, but I’m not interested in that for this particular case. I want to see Trump get the book thrown at him for being a whiny little baby who pathologically can’t stop defaming the person he raped.
This is a pretty good indicator of the quality of her legal guidance, in that she’s halfway to a valid form of objection, but seems to have forgotten the other half of it. You are allowed to object to evidence or testimony that is more prejudicial (i.e. “the defendant was seen kicking puppies at the dog park on a weekly basis”) than it is probative, meaning that ts useful in proving or disproving the allegations (the case was actually about a bank robbery not involving puppies at all). You can’t just cry “prejudiced!” and expect the judge to go along with you.
Trump’s team also did themselves no favors by objecting out of turn, especially after he explicitly ordered “one witness, one lawyer” during a recess.