by Matt Margolis
Last week, a jury awarded E. Jean Carroll a ridiculous $83.3 million in damages for alleged defamation by Donald Trump after she made dubious allegations that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.
Trump’s antics in the courtroom have been widely reported, but so have the judge’s rather bizarre orders that essentially hamstrung Trump and his defense, forbidding him to present exculpatory evidence or defend himself.
There may be a reason why Trump wasn’t given the opportunity to adequately defend himself. It appears that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who presided over the case, may have a major conflict of interest.
The New York Post has learned that Kaplan was once a “mentor” to Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. The two aren’t related, but they worked together in the early 1990s at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown.
In a letter filed on Monday, Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, demanded answers:
If Your Honor truly worked with Ms. Kaplan in any capacity—especially if there was a mentor/mentee relationship—that fact should have been disclosed before any case involving these parties was permitted to proceed forward. This issue is particularly concerning since Plaintiff’s other lead counsel, Shawn Crowley, served as Your Honor’s law clerk, and we were previously advised that Your Honor co-officiated her wedding. 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a) states that “[a]ny… judge … of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Habba also noted that Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges makes it clear that a judge must “disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including” when the judge served as “a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served.”
Let’s recap: It appears the judge in this case, Lewis A. Kaplan, worked with Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, and officiated at her wedding. Carroll’s other lawyer was also a law clerk for Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. That Lewis Kaplan didn’t reveal these conflicts of interest is enough for him to face major consequences, but clearly, he should have recused himself from the case.
Habba is calling on the judge to confirm or deny the associations.
Here, without knowing more information (or having a specific factual denial by Your Honor that you had a mentor-mentee relationship with Ms. Kaplan), we are unable to flesh out our position concerning what specific relief should be requested, including, but not limited to, moving for new trials on the issues of liability and damages. Surely, however, this Court should provide defense counsel with all of the relevant facts. At a minimum, this information could certainly prove relevant to President Trump’s forthcoming Rule 59 motion.
Trump’s defense was already planning to appeal the decision because of the judge being “overtly hostile.” These new revelations should make Trump’s appeal a lot easier.
This whole Which Hunt Against Trump is starting to show signs of coming apart at the seams here is hoping her Ship sunk at the Dock
So, we have yet ANOTHER lawfare case against Trump with an incestuous element. When will Democrats learn? I wonder if Carroll can see 83 million little dollar bills flying away yet?
It is interesting that the recent change in New York State law that allowed E. Jean Carroll to bring her lawsuit beyond the normal statute of limitations was done by a rabid anti-Trump state legislator.
A sane court system would never in a million years lodge an $83 million damages award upon a washed-up, octogenarian sex columnist for defamation arising from an alleged rape in which the claimant could not even recall the most basic details, such as the year it took place, and waited nearly thirty years before filing a lawsuit once it became politically expedient to do so.
The judgement will be reversed on appeal.
She’s going to piss off the appeals court judges before Trump’s case even lands on their desk. Trump’s “defense” has turned into an attack on the justice system.
What evidence does Carroll have that justifies $83 million? You (and your buddy Michael) have failed to answer my question.
Punative damages are amounts added on top of compensatory damages to punish an offender for his or her bad conduct. $83 million is what it takes to punish a billionaire. Trump earned every whack of the paddle.
Habba should keep running her mouth to see if she can get herself disbarred for professional incompetence, or bump the awarded damages up to an even $100 million.
She’s not conducting herself as a lawyer should. She’s doing inflammatory performance art to to please Donald Trump, and damaging her client in the process.
I don’t know if you know this, but that’s what attorneys do. And, of course, she has a solidly valid point. This case, like Jerk Smith’s, like Fat Alvin, like Fast F**k Fani, is an embarrassing ridiculous example of lawfare of the most blatant sort. Not a single case has even a hint of integrity. Just like “Russian collusion”.
You think Fani is conducting herself as an attorney should? How about Kaplan?
greg has nothing left to defeat Trump except his own hate. greg is a traitor and a loser.
Are you retarded?
The Judgement is made they cant bump it up without a new trial.
If she was not qualified and professional, she wouldnt be a gun for Trump.
greg thinks he is relevant. Far from it.
An appeals court can remand a case back to a lower court.
Habba is making a very serious professional error in trying to play to the court of public opinion. Going full-Trump outside of the courtroom has burned down the career of more than one of his former attorneys.
It’s hilarious that Trump & Co are now going after Taylor Swift. She’s the wrong girl to turn into an enemy.
Taylor Swift kinda tired of her acting the 17 yr old trailer trash girl.
Over half of young American adults are Taylor Swift fans. They’re protective of her, and they vote.
I’m no fan of her glitzy stage performances, nor of most of her music. I really like her ballad “Carolina”, though.
Explain how Trump is going after Swift.
You should see Carroll being interviewed by Joy Reid on MSNBC. She continues to display she is a money-grubbing, predatory lunatic. She was asked if she was going to use her ill-gotten gain (not yet gained) for good works and she giddily went on to list all the superfluous crap she would buy everyone on the panel there. Yeah, this is a worthy prosecution, alright. I only hope Trump can turn around and sue HER, her attorney and the judge for defamation.
For some odd reason jurors didn’t find Mr. Grab-em-by-the-pussy’s denial that he would ever abuse a woman believable.
Six of the nine jurors, by the way, were men.
Again, Trump is presumed guilty without evidence or even proof a crime was committed? Like with Kavanaugh, you have to prove him guilty, he doesn’t have to prove himself innocent. Unlike Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden, Trump has grabbed NO pussies.
So, what was the evidence? Take off your tap shoes and answer the question.
When was Biden in front of a jury?
I wonder if Carroll will end up there?
If Biden were Trump, he’d pardon the guy.
If the guy was a pedophile, Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden would pardon him. Kindred spirits.
He was smart to have this over this year. Five years in a country club federal prison and out in three or so for good behavior. He would be in real trouble had this dragged on into next year.
Yet were not allowed to see evidence that the lunatic thinks rape is sexy, and gets sex advice from bitches in heat.
Well, hell, kitt… letting the defendant present THEIR evidence and make THEIR statements would spoil the whole lawfare enterprise.
That is not what she said or meant, and you should know that.
You wouldnt be so confused if your liberal women were not so ugly that men had to replace them.
The internalized misogyny…
That took you a long time to come up with a 2 word meaningless bullshit response,
good night Mikey
I wasn’t aware we were tallying the minutes between responses.
You’re accusing kitt of misogyny. That’s pretty funny.
“That’s pretty funny.”
Why? From what I can tell, she seems to have pretty deeply internalized the misogyny that surrounded her when she was younger. It doesn’t seem funny to me at all.
And yet, of course, you continue to scamper away from my question. As does Greg. This tells me you fully buy into the lawfare scheme of abusing the justice system and, with no evidence of any crimes, try to bankrupt and knock Trump out of a campaign you know your party has no chance of lawfully winning. There IS no evidence, is there?
Your as funny as a Funeral Bean Brain
Oh maybe he is right I made damn sure my grands didnt go to any daycare, so my daughter could work, why? Seeing bite marks bruises and developmental problems with children sent to those 8 or 9 hour germ factory hell holes. Run by mostly women who didnt GAF about the kids in their cage. Did they have 2 meals cooked? Did they have a bath? Did they know their ABCs and colors, even pronunciation of words, who sat them down for basic addition? How much are those moms paying? I got 50 dollars a week that had to be deposited in the kids bank account, and a free cell phone(My son in law works for ATT, he is an engineer there)There are other rewards no one can properly describe.
I do dislike women who dont support other women or even their own daughters, their line “I raised my kids.” Those are the women in marches, with oddly colored hair dressed as vaginas with murder in their hearts for the unborn.
Having Groomer use a word he cant really define is funny, Oh lookie I think this is an insult, like anything from someone I dont really know or respect would matter.
That’s just what leftists call the “truth”. No doubt, the fool has no idea what the word even means.
Well, yeah…. it kinda is. But, you never answered an earlier question of mine. What evidence of Caroll’s is worth $83 million?
Why are you asking *me*? I haven’t said anything for it or against it.
I’m asking you because you are an anti-Trump leftist that supports the ongoing lawfare. Or am I wrong about that?
Your earlier comment:
“Why are you asking *me*? I haven’t said anything for it or against it.”
Just here to insert inane meaningless sentences
According to dhimmierats this lawyer could have been his common law wife and there would have been no conflict of interest as long as she was working against Trump.
Dhimmierat law is the law of the gulag. Welcome to the gulag comrades.
And, it looks like Stacy Abrams pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars as her election-denying non-profit (well, unless you’re a thief) goes tits-up.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/30/stacey-abrams-nonprofit-implodes-shelling-out-millions-failed-election-fights/