Trump Lawyer Backs off Idea That E. Jean Carroll Judge Had Conflict

U.S. News & World Report. ^ | Jan. 30, 2024, at 12:17 p.m. | By Luc Cohen and Jonathan Stempel

[Behind Liberal Lines]

A lawyer for Donald Trump on Tuesday backed off her suggestion that the judge who oversaw E. Jean Carroll's two successful civil defamation trials against the former U.S. president might have had a conflict of interest.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan, Trump's lawyer Alina Habba said she was satisfied that the judge and Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who is not related, did not have a "mentor-mentee relationship" when they worked at the same law firm three decades ago....

"The point of my January 29 letter was to verify whether the information contained in the New York Post article is accurate," she wrote. "Since Ms. Kaplan has now denied that there was ever a mentor-mentee relationship between herself and Your Honor, this issue has seemingly been resolved."

[thegagline]

Yeah, it’s probably not. Look at all the DoJ lawyers who go on to become federal judges. That doesn’t mean they can’t hear cases involving DoJ, just not cases that their former employer was working on while they were there.

Agreed. Consider all the former DAs or public defenders who preside over criminal trials.

As an aside, running to the press prior to filing a motion to recuse/disqualify is considered bad form.

[Sacajaweau]

Savage rider is wrong...look up “with prejudice”...

[gloryblaze]

Trump’s comments about grabbing were allowed.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

[Brian Griffin]

Note “forceably touched” is left blank in the VERDICT FORM:

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1752411416328364446/photo/4

[Brian Griffin]

“with prejudice” = no longer adjudicable = matter can no longer be argued in a court of law

[Brian Griffin]

by the party that made the claim

[Behind Liberal Lines]

What does the fact Carroll is most likely lying (to be generous) have to do with whether or not there was a conflict of interest and/or whether or not his attorney bungled his defense?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Yep. With prejudice generally means she waived it and can’t bring it up again.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I feel as if her goal with this case is less “defend Trump” and more “set herself for a gig as a Fox News Legal Analyst.”

[Vaduz]

Wonder if something bigger and more important on the judge popped up?.

Cases like this has a lot of tentacles involved?.

[Sacajaweau]

I posted the same at Post #8...I usually go directly to Black’s (which is on my shelf) but did in my own words.

[Sacajaweau]

Whoops see my post at #29...must be nap time

[Fury]

Habba does Trump no favors with her antics.

She's in over her head. When she wins some notable cases she can showboat.

[gloryblaze]

https://newrepublic.com/post/178219/judge-carroll-case-orders-trump-lawyer-habba-stop-reading-tweets

[higgmeister]

She apologized “with prejudice.” She now has a denial on the record. If any info to the contrary is found to be provable she can revisit the issue. Meanwhile, the accusation is in the public domain.

Sometimes what one says is not what is intended to be inferred.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.

Marc Antony's speech at Caesar's funeral

[Sacajaweau]

Half of Hollywood got their start...oh never mind...

[Jane Long]

I feel as if her goal with this case is less “defend Trump” and more “set herself for a gig as a Fox News Legal Analyst.”

---

Well, as a confirmed NT, I’ll take your (any other NTs) Trump/Trump associates *concerns* with a YUGE grain of salt. 🙃

🤣

[gloryblaze]

She's [Hubba's] in over her head.

It looks that way now. But I didn't hear anyone come up with distinctively better directions before the rulings, other than silly blasts. They relied on President Trump's presidential immunity and, when that fell through, they went with he said/she said, believing that would be a 50/50 deal, so not a preponderance. President Trump didn't testify except to say the whole story was a big, fat lie. And Carroll's lawyers argued that no testimony by him suggested he was afraid of the questions.

Then Carroll testified to tons of details and produced two buddies to back her up and two other women who told similar tales. They figured this constituted a pattern and easily a preponderance of evidence presented. They bought it, hook, line and sinker.

I pray that an appeal exonerates him fully.

But I don't even want to guess the odds.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Since this round of conflict claim/denial started there has been separate reports Carroll's other attorney had ties to the judge including he'd conducted her marriage. Have no idea whether any of this is true.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Well, “NT” or not, it appears that Trump has replaced her: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4214159/posts

I guess you can hold the salt. It might be bad for your blood pressure.