Correct, but the POS has to put the money into escrow, so he won't have it either. That puts almost $90 million in escrow, diminishing his liquid assets, with another upcoming trial going for over $300 mill. & I think he is relying on the same Legal Team. Good luck...
You're asking a Trump supporter to stop defending Trump ??????
Actually, that trial is over and all that awaits are Engoron's decisions. He set a goal of 1/31/24 but that is not in stone.Correct, but the POS has to put the money into escrow, so he won't have it either. That puts almost $90 million in escrow, diminishing his liquid assets, with another upcoming trial going for over $300 mill. & I think he is relying on the same Legal Team. Good luck...
Knocking down unfounded scenarios is quite enjoyable, thanx...
This poster does this more times than not. It's a diversionary tactic when starting to lose the argument.
Give me something better to work with and I might be interested in considering any of them. But, know this, snarky comments and personal attacks are not conducive to civil discussion and I will lose interest in anything you have to say.
Well, that sentence sure was a mess.
Dude, we see you. You've taken this tactic with me almost every time we've interacted with each other. So if you demand civility, look in the e-mirror.
Trump and his loyal worshipers always blame the victim, when they are the predator. It's how they roll.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
That's always my plan.
The he should have assaulted her in a Republican district.
Trump has been adjudicated a rapist in a judge's ruling. So, to start, you will be voting for a rapist this November. However, because Trump is an utterly despicable human being. He has defamed his sexual assault victim, and a jury hit him with an $83,000,000 verdict. One would think that any decent, conscionable human being would say, "You know, I don't like Biden, but I can't support a rapist that defames his own victim.", one would think that would be the case.Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’
By Charles Gasparino
Published Jan. 27, 2024
Updated Jan. 27, 2024, 7:18 p.m. ET
"Donald Trump’s lawyers will use an “insane” and previously unknown “conflict of interest” between E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.
Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s “mentor.
“It was never disclosed. It’s insane and so incestuous,” Habba said, insisting neither the 79-year-old judge nor Roberta Kaplan, 57, who aren’t related, disclosed the “conflict of interest” and a violation of judicial ethics rules.
Roberta Kaplan worked at Paul, Weiss Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown from 1992 to 2016, before leaving to become a founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, according to her LinkedIn page.
“This is news to us,” she continued. “We are going to include this in our appeal and take appropriate measures. The fact it wasn’t disclosed is an ethics violation.”
During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton."
Exclusive | Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’
“It was never disclosed. It’s insane and so incestuous,” Habba said, insisting neither the 79-year-old judge nor Roberta Kaplan, 57, who aren’t related, disclosed the “conflict of inter…nypost.com
E. Jeanne Carroll probably shouldn't be counting her millions yet.
And so, the appeal process has begun and at least one reason cited in the article is that the "good judge" must have for forgotten to mention a conflict of interest and went ahead committed a violation of judicial ethical rules. Justice my ass.
Irrelevant to my point. If the trial was held in a Republican district, would the outcome be the same?
Maybe, maybe not. You're alleging the jurors were not impartial with zero evidence. Trump got a fair trial and lost.
I realize that. My point was made to counter Overtails ridiculous claim that there wad an "affair" between Trump and Carroll.
People (even jurists) have political biases. Among democrats Trump is guilty (prejudged) of everything he's accused of. Among Republicans, he's given a benefit of doubt. Present me with evidence that this claim is not valid.
When I said "affair" I was speaking to the event, not a relationship.
It’s an irrelevant question. The issue happened where it happened.
