Donald Trump Has Chosen to Pay Millions to Trash Rule of Law

I have a standing complaint that reporters serially fall into Donald Trump’s trap of reporting on his courtroom tantrums rather than the evidence of his fraud and crime presented therein. But I’m going to do just that, because I believe reporters are misunderstanding the way in which Donald Trump is approaching the second E. Jean Carroll trial and what it bodes for his attack on democracy ahead.

It started with a series of requests to delay the trial so Trump could attend the funeral of Melania’s mother.

The funeral was a ruse: even as he made the requests, Trump continued to obviously and publicly plan campaign events in New Hampshire for the period of potential delay. After initial denials, Alina Habba renewed the request to the famously irascible Judge Lewis Kaplan. That drew a predictable rebuke, in response to which Habba mouthed off to the judge.

Earlier Wednesday, Kaplan told Habba to sit down after she tried yet again to get Kaplan to postpone the trial on Thursday so Trump could attend his mother-in-law’s funeral.

“I will hear no further argument on it. None. Do you understand that word? None. Please sit down,” Kaplan said.

“I don’t like to be spoken to that way,” Habba responded.

Habba had to have know this would go over poorly. She attended Trump’s first rape trial. Plus, even a parking garage lawyer from New Jersey would know of Kaplan’s strict decorum in his court.

Habba invited follow-on rebukes by failing other basic rules of trial decorum.

Over the course of the day, Trump’s attorneys asked Kaplan first to recuse, then for a mistrial, just as they repeatedly did with Judge Arthur Engoron in Trump’s civil fraud trial.

Then Carroll took the stand. Throughout, Trump audibly fumed, leading Carroll’s lawyer to ask Judge Kaplan to quiet him. That led, again predictably, to a clash between him and Kaplan.

“Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported to me,” the judge said.

Kaplan then spoke directly to Trump, who was seated at the defense table. “Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial,” he said. “I understand you are probably very eager for me to do that.”

At that point, Trump threw up his hands, saying, “I would love it. I would love it.”

“I know you would. I know you would,” Kaplan replied. “You just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently.”

Trump shot back: “You can’t either.”

Again, all this was predictable. And commentators are probably correct in guessing that they’ll lead the jury to boost the award.

But two things about this reality theater make me convinced it is also entirely planned.

First, something led Joe Tacopina to drop off the team the day before trial. In the past, other lawyers have dropped when they had a conflict with Boris Epshteyn, who continues to run the reality TV show that substitutes for Trump’s legal defenses. And Epshteyn even attempted to speak up, before Judge Kaplan told him, as he has told Habba repeatedly, to take a seat.

The other indication that this has all been carefully scripted are Trump’s posts, rolling out even as he sits in the courtroom without his phone, defaming Carroll again over and over, or bitching about Kaplan. Either Trump drafted those posts in advance, or granted a staffer license to defame and attack on his behalf.

This one attacking Judge Kaplan, for example, suggests that his (male) lawyer asked him not to attend his last rape trial, but now he is attending to witness what Trump falsely claims is bias and unfairness.

Trump is attending this trial, which will almost certainly result in much larger award for Carroll than she would otherwise get, in order to delegitimize it.

And Trump has decided it is worth millions to do that.

Given that he’s a notorious cheapskate who stiffs his lawyers, that ought to give commentators pause. Does he simply plan to not pay, setting up further confrontation and ultimately a contempt fight? What then? A call to violence?

This ploy comes at a key time,  too. After the Iowa caucus, with its anemic turnout signaling Trump’s expected victory may shrink the GOP so badly it will lose races up and down the ballot, political journalism instead turned to treating the results themselves as news. WaPo paid almost 20 journalists to write 10 stories the day after the caucus! Political journalists want to pretend everything is normal.

Yet Trump has not been running a campaign. He has been running an effort to consolidate the party to him, increasingly committed to his attack on rule of law.

Within days (hopefully), the DC Circuit will rule that he is not immune (and therefore Joe Biden can’t assassinate him with impunity), which will finally set up a test of SCOTUS’ willingness to rule against him criminally.

His other court filings are similarly descending into louder and louder wails.

At the same time, even before joining Mike Roman’s challenge to Fani Willis in Georgia, he has started working her into court filings in other cases, as in this motion to compel in the Florida case.

A January 12, 2024 congressional inquiry and other sources indicate that such materials exist. See Ex. 63. Specifically, Congress sent a letter to “Attorney Consultant” and “Special Assistant District Attorney” Nathan Wade regarding documents suggesting that Wade helped coordinate with the Biden Administration in 2022. One of Wade’s invoices indicates that he devoted eight hours to a “conf. with White House Counsel” on May 23, 2022. Id. at 2. The meeting occurred within weeks of the New York Times reporting on President Biden’s leaked statement that President Trump “should be prosecuted,” Ex. 62 at 1, and around the same time that Jonathan Su, from the White House Counsel’s Office, was working with NARA to manipulate the PRA in an effort to disclose records to the FBI and the January 6th Committee.

Willis will not formally respond until early February, after responding to Nathan Wade’s divorce, leaving a vacuum where any explanation should be. And while I think this report gets ahead of the verified facts, it’s a good warning of where the challenge to Willis may go. Until that is resolved, Trump will try to taint every single legal case against him with a tie to Willis.

Plus, it’s not just Trump whose legal woes are coming to a head. Peter Navarro is set to be sentenced January 25, and there have been sealed filings in DOJ’s civil suit to recover encrypted comms from him that should have been provided under the President Records Act. Steve Bannon’s New York trial is set for May.

Roger Stone is even back under investigation (even beyond the January 6 investigation) for his reported discussions of assassinating Jerry Nadler or Eric Swalwell.

Trump’s entire fascist cohort would, in a normal world, be facing up to the possibility of consequences for their acts.

But that’s not how this crowd rolls. They would rather bring down rule of law in the US than face consequences themselves. Indeed, it’s such a central part of their plan that Trump’s actually willing to spend money — or invite contempt, followed by whatever incitement with which he responds.

It is a category error to view Trump’s trial tantrums within the rubric of normal legal consequences, even in Kaplan’s entirely predictable courtroom. They are, instead, part of a concerted effort to take down rule of law. For years, Trump has been training his cult to loathe rule of law, and his latest theater is all part of that process.

Even as Trump is ensuring he will be the GOP’s only possibly choice in November, he is also guaranteeing that the entire party will need his attack on rule of law to succeed.

Trump’s fascist mouthpiece, Stephen Miller, has even already started a campaign claiming that Joe Biden is causing the chaos that Trump is about to unleash.

It’s all part of the plan.

image_print
248 replies
  1. EW Moderation Team says:

    A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:
    — We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of a minimum of 8 letters.

    — We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**

    — If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of last October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.

    Thank you.

  2. Bay State Librul says:

    He is making a mockery of the legal system. This is who he is.
    Emptywheel is making me cry on the subway, and shit, missing my stop.
    I have a suggestion on what to do — but it will break the first three words of the Golden Rule.

  3. Golden Bough says:

    Once again, Marcy, it’s refreshing to have someone providing critical and necessary pushback and analysis of Trump’s antics and overarching strategy of treating the rule of law with brazen contempt.

    I haven’t been following the whole Fani Willis scandal (and Trump’s exploitation of the mess she’s apparently made herself) closely enough, but it sounds as though bmaz was right all along about her being over her skis in the GA case.

    • emptywheel says:

      There are 3 separate questions.
      1) Did Willis do something unethical in hiring Wade? Jury is still out.
      2) Is Willis’ case a stretch in the scope of GA RICO? Thus far, judge says no.
      3) Should prosecutors in states pursue state charges for 2020? Thus far, 2 other swing states also say yes.

        • emptywheel says:

          Linked in the post. I think it gets ahead of the evidence though I absolutely trust his take on Fulton legal matters.

        • c-i-v-i-l says:

          An Anna Bower tweet:
          “JUST IN: Judge McAfee sets an evidentiary hearing on Mike Roman’s motion to disqualify Fulton County DA Fani Willis based on alleged “improper” relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
          “Hearing set for 9:30 a.m. on Feb. 15.
          “The state’s response is due by Feb. 2”

          See also, “Fulton County’s district attorney on Thursday fired back at allegations she has engaged in an “improper” relationship with her top deputy, accusing his estranged wife of trying to obstruct her prosecution of Donald Trump and his allies. Fani Willis has been subpoenaed to give a pretrial deposition in the divorce case of Nathan and Joycelyn Wade on January 23, but in a Thursday court filing the DA’s attorney said that subpoena should be quashed.”
          https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-trump-judge-schedules-february-hearing-on-willis-allegations/VCDYL4JFGNE4VKPNDYR26POXQU/ [note: that last part does not seem to be a tracking sequence, I tried the URL without it, and got a 404 error]

        • SteveBev says:

          Here is Fani Willis application within the Wade divorce proceedings to quash the subpoena

          It asserts
          1 the subpoena is defective
          2 there are no grounds on which to depose Willis on any matter relevant to any determination to be made within the proceedings
          a) the parties have agreed that there are irreconcilable differences, so grounds for divorce have been conclusively determined
          b) all financial records re N Wade have been disclosed
          c) and Willis is in any case immune from process regarding matters of documents in the hands of the County regarding b)
          3 The subpoena application is a vexatious abuse of process, to harass the Disctrict Attorney by the applicant who has conspired with defendants in proceedings in a criminal case in which the DA acts, and as such forms part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice

          https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24367268-willis-filing

          Hmmm this seems to be a very strong response to a badly cobbled together stunt, for which it would appear criminal consequences may be on the table

    • P J Evans says:

      Her personal life may be a mess, but that doesn’t necessarily affect her professional life. We can’t judge that.

      • LaMissy! says:

        Yeah, I don’t think the judging is going to work like that, especially given it’s a Black female.

    • Rwood0808 says:

      Willis being out over her skis is debatable, but what she has done right is partner with John Floyd, who I have seen described as ‘the Michael Jordon of RICO”.

      Not only does he have decades of experience on both sides of RICO cases, he literally wrote the book on the subject. Amazon lists it coming in at over 1,000 pages.

      So maybe, just maybe, Willis knows where she is weak and has taken steps to counter that by finding the best gun in town to assist her?

  4. Benoit Roux says:

    While this makes complete sense, one question that comes to mind is at what amount of money is DJT going to feel the pain? The first amount for defamation was 5 millions and he left the court room and immediately defamed her again. Apparently, the new amount being talked about is 10 millions. Is this enough? Would 25 millions start to bother him? 50 millions? For a repeat offender like him, the damages are symbolic at best. He is so rich (or so he says) that maybe these amounts are just the price of the entry ticket for him to have his fun. But at some point it will be too much? Another obvious question is whether he plans to wiggle his way to never pay one dime.

    • Terry Salad says:

      As the jury award gets bigger due to Trump’s courtroom behavior, he’ll just appeal the large award. Am I correct in thinking that very large damages awards are often reduced on appeal? Then, after dragging out the appeals, he’ll claim vindication when the award is reduced. This is like watching a bad WWE event (no surprise that Trump gets many of his antics from professional wrestling. They really know how to work the rubes).

      • eyesoars says:

        TFG had to put up the full award amount to appeal the first judgment. If the second is $50M and he wants to appeal it, he’ll probably have to put up that much to proceed to appeal.

    • Legonaut says:

      The wiggling is baked in. It’ll take years, further contempt charges, and wiggling on the contempt before anyone sees a dime. Meanwhile, he’ll continue to defame EJC, the judge, the clerks, the lawyers, and the entire state of New York the entire time.

      The amounts aren’t a deterrent because, in the end, Trump isn’t the one paying. He’ll get someone else to pay it for him.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        The mob’s donations won’t be enough to pay for a hundred million punitive award for Carroll or for two to three hundred million in the NY civil fraud trial. That, and especially the latter, will come from Trump. If Engoron’s order to appoint a receiver is upheld on appeal, Trump loses much more.

        • Susan D Einbinder says:

          He can borrow it from the Saudi billions his son-in-law has, which remain virtually unused … or a billionaire will pay it for him. It’s inexplicable to me how he keeps managing to evade any accountability or consequences, makes a cockroach surviving a nuclear war seem like a piker by comparison. I mean, how does he keep getting away with everything? Can anyone think of anyone else – animal, vegetable, mineral – that has done this, for so long?

    • Rwood0808 says:

      Once you reach a certain level of wealth do monetary damages really have an impact? Doesnt stop Goldman Sachs or Big Medical or Big Auto from doing some seriously nasty crimes. They simply factor the fine into the plan and always come out profitable and with nobody lifestyle, security, or standard of living altered one bit.

      One of these judges needs to give trump a taste of whats to come and jail him for contempt. Even if for a day it would scare the living hell out of him.

  5. Eichhörnchen says:

    I noticed that, in the various accounts I read of Trump”s contemptuous behavior in Judge Kaplan’s courtroom that not one of the reporters seemed to question why Trump would “love it” if he were held in contempt or barred from attending.

    I fear your analysis is spot on, Marcy, that this is all theatrics a la reality TV to bring down the rule of law.

    • Bears7485 says:

      The reporters and their editors would love it too, hence the absence of any attempt to explain his motivations.

  6. SteveBev says:

    I think your thesis is correct: Trump’s antics have a feral calculation to them, showing contempt for and delegitimisation of the rule of law. It goes beyond merely petulantly being unable to control his behaviour. It is the wilful demonstration that restraint upon him (and his MAGA movement) is antithetical to his and their vision of what is necessary to MakeAmericaGreat.

    This post from Truth Social makes exactly those arguments

    “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION. ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END. EVEN EVENTS THAT “CROSS THE LINE” MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY. EXAMPLE: YOU CAN’T STOP POLICE FROM DOING THE JOB OF STRONG & EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THE OCCASIONAL “ROGUE COP” OR “BAD APPLE.” SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH “GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT.” ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR THE AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE AN EASY DECISION. GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT!” (Jan 18, 2024. 6:48 a.m. GMT)

    He envisions a nation built upon leaders who are Great-but-slightly-imperfect and laws enforced in a strong and effective way without being hamstrung and weakened by concerns over bad apples or rogue cops.

    • Attygmgm says:

      When, as expected, the courts finish with declaring a president is not immune, can we dare hope someone will ask Mr. Trump to concede that without total immunity he can’t possibly do the job?

        • Adam Treat says:

          If he wins election and assumes the office of President it effectively shows that he’s right: he is pragmatically immune. At least federally. That will leave us with a constitutional crisis when the States continue to hold him to account. You can bet he will use powers of federal government to try and avoid State accountability.

        • wa_rickf says:

          Trump will never set foot in the WH again. How can I be so sure? Because there are WAY MORE decent Americans, then there are of neurotic, vindictive, emotionally unwell Trump sycophants.

        • ExRacerX says:

          If you’ll recall, Trump ended up in the White House after losing the popular vote by a pretty good margin. The real question is, do we have a majority of decent electors, and how is the gerrymandering situation now compared with then?

      • Vinniegambone says:

        Oh how i wish there was never a Donald Trump to worry about and if we heard the words ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY in conversation we would just presume people were talking about a new vodka product.

        • ExRacerX says:

          1 jigger Absolut Vodka

          1 syringe each of COVID, RSV, Flu, Shingles, Cholera, Diptheria, Rabies, Pneumonia, Anthrax, Hepatitis A B & C, Tetanus, Measles, Mumps, Smallpox, Yellow Fever, and Typhoid vaccines.

          Shake, pour, and add a twist of lime!

    • Scott_in_MI says:

      “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION”

      Never mind the fact that presidents – including Trump – have apparently functioned without particular impediment in the half-century since Nixon’s pardon, which should have made it clear that blanket criminal immunity for presidents was Not A Thing.

      • SteveBev says:

        Although ostensibly the argument is directed at SCOTUS, what Trump is doing is grooming the MAGA crowd and media in his version of what governance and the rule of law needs to be for America to be made Great Again under Trump.

        As and when SCOTUS refuses his claim of impunity, Trump won’t stop.

        • Harry Eagar says:

          That’s plausible, but remember when he called his supporters to fill the streets against Bragg’s suit? Nobody showed up.

          Miller and Epshteyn may be mistaking the foam on top for the coffee underneath.

        • Rwood0808 says:

          The willingness of the MAGA cult to engage in another J6 is grossly overestimated.

          They saw what happened to their tough-guy leaders and fellow “soldiers”. The majority are not jumping at a second chance to join Tarrio or Babbit. Like most cowards they’ll talk a good game but when it comes to action that puts their lives and freedom in jeopardy they’ll stay home safely behind their keyboards.

        • wa_rickf says:

          Unless Trump sycophants (age 65+) are already practicing steering their mobile scooters and firing off their AR-15s, their little ‘civil war’ doesn’t stand a chance. Same goes for Trump’s Meal Team Six, those folks will run out of breath just walking a quarter of a mile and will hardly be a contribution to the MAGA ‘war’ effort.

        • RitaRita says:

          “Grooming” is a great word and explains a lot of what Trump is doing with his courtroom antics. He is grooming both his followers and the media.

    • Xboxershorts says:

      I think it’s a bit more complicated than just “Undermining the rule of law”. That statement isn’t quite partisan enough. And IMHO, the key to understanding Trumpism is to understand what the allies behind him are doing. From media to Congress to state legislatures to billionaire funded think tanks.

      In all of the above what I see is, not so much delegitimizing “rule of law” but, specifically, delegitimizing rule of law ONLY when a Democrat
      holds office. When a Republican holds that office, they’ll make it so the law fits the actions of the Republican, regardless.

      The narrow target of delegitimizing behavior…is Democrats, Liberals and left leaning moderates…roughly 60ish% of the population. If successful against their target, their pressure point, then the nation itself would experience a collapse of the rule of law.

      • SteveBev says:

        Undoubtedly MAGA Republicanism has as a central core the treatment of its political opponents as enemies, whose points of view are antithetical to true patriotism, whose constituencies should be delegitimised, their votes suppressed, their histories denegrated, and their aspirations smeared, scorned and excoriated.
        However, what MAGA Republicanism also scorns are rule of law conservatives, as being traitors to their idea of patriotic populism. That populism has a strong authoritarian and autocratic bent. With a ‘by any means necessary’ justification for actions taken in furtherance of their goals – including fraud and violence.

        So, insofar as you appear to suggest that Democrats are the only target of delegitimisation, and attacks on the rule of law are just a by product of the rise of MAGA Republicanism. then I am afraid I disagree.

        For conservatives to survive they increasing have to be the right sort of Republican. The Republican tent has expanded right wards embracing overt fascists, and meanwhile the MAGA expectation of the centre right is bend the knee or fuck off to the cold outside.

        • Xboxershorts says:

          yeah, this is what I was describing as the Neo-Theo-Christian in name only terrorists’ targets:

          Democrats, Liberals and left leaning moderates

          The 7 Mountains mandate has been a thing for decades, and just like the “K” Street “Family”, in order to bring about their rapture, which requires them to control all 7 of the mountains of society, by any means necessary. Any means. That is the SOP of these frauds.

        • ThomasPaine says:

          This.

          The problem Trump is having is that the more extreme his positions and the more rabid his cult becomes, the smaller it gets. Kinda of like a small black hole – it leaks matter at a greater and greater rate as it shrinks.

          Case in point, in blood red Iowa, he won the caucus with only 51% of the vote of ~110,000 GOP members vs. ~187,000 in 2016. An incumbent POTUS usually wins the Iowa caucus by 95% Plus. Al Gore who was a VP won Iowa and NH by 65% + in 2000. A LOT of GOP centrists have left or are leaving the party because of Trump. Over 40% of the caucus-goers who selected Nikki Haley told poll-takers they would vote for Biden if Trump became the GOP nominee. That may be only 10% of the caucus, but as partisan as the country has become, losing 10% of your base to the other guy is probably fatal.

          As Trump makes the Constitution and the Rule of Law the object of his wrath, he is NOT gaining a lot of new allies – he is shedding his old allies at an increasing rate. In addition, when the 40% of the electorate that thinks there are other possible candidates figures out that the General Election will be a Biden – Trump rematch, Biden’s support will blossom and he will win by a larger popular vote an EC margin than he did in 2020 because he will be seen as the only sane choice on the ballot.

        • SteveBev says:

          Intimidation, voter suppression, ballot manipulation and theft are key components of MAGA political culture because they are necessary and intrinsic to success.

    • Fly by Night says:

      Trump was POTUS #45. That means there were 44 prior Presidents that managed to govern despite it being “…IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION. ”

      I keep hopefully (hopelessly?) waiting for someone in MSM to point out that very simple, very obvious fact to the American public.

    • Stephen Calhoun says:

      If TFG’s get-out-of-jail Plan A is to be elected, it seems to me he’s seeding Plan B with his rabble rousing and ‘othering.’

      imo

  7. JonathanW says:

    Dr Wheeler, great writing as usual! I hope this comment isn’t too cynical, but I kind of assume that most criminals would rather “bring down rule of law in the US rather than face consequences themselves”. I mean, in silly terms, wouldn’t a serial bank robber very loosely desire that as well? I feel that the bigger, much much more scary thing that your post today and several of your other articles recently highlight is the fact that a large portion of the American public AND a huge chunk of elected Republicans, right-wing media organizations, etc all are willing to go along with this tearing down of the rule of law. So, while the bank robber may desire this outcome, s/he is unlikely to accomplish it. Whereas this threat is much more real.

    • emptywheel says:

      Right. Trump has long been contemptuous of the law.

      What is different now is that a particularly well-armed 20% of the country believes he is their savior and another 15% believe they have to placate him in order to hold onto power themselves.

      • ColdFusion says:

        Just a reminder that not all well armed people are trump supporters. I’d hazard a guess that more are against trump, although his supporters likely own guns, it is true.

        • emptywheel says:

          I agree that not all well-armed people are Trump supporters. But among Trump supporters there are a whole bunch who dropped 10s of $1000s of dollars on arsenals.

        • Rwood0808 says:

          While that is certainly true real soldiers understand that you can only effectively deploy one or two weapons at a time in an actual combat situation.

          If the battle were between a 12 year-old who grew up carrying an AK everywhere he went against a mealteam six member with an arsenal he’s never fired at someone fireing back my money would be on the kid.

        • xxbronxx says:

          I realize it’s simply a typo but “mealteam six” is now my go-to name for all the cosplaying militias out there.

        • harpie says:

          O/T Rayne…look at this [LOL!]:

          https://nitter.net/SeamusHughes/status/1748094963487846595
          Jan 18, 2024 · 9:28 PM UTC

          A few days after allegedly telling a roomful of reporters they need to do more local
          stories about corruption, the Baltimore Suns rolls out two stories about the new boss’s local political donations. [screenshot]

          One response is the Mark Twain quote:
          “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.”

        • Rayne says:

          LOL The boss teed it up, what did they expect?

          Thanks, harpie! We really need a hopper to keep good stuff like this.

        • harpie says:

          [I’m putting this here to help me keep my thoughts together.]

          https://nitter.net/BGrueskin/status/1747071571557015714
          Jan 16, 2024 · 1:41 AM UTC
          [blockquote]

          The guy who just bought the Baltimore Sun has also been a big funder of
          – Project Veritas and
          – Moms for Liberty. […and
          – Young Americans for Liberty, and
          – Turning Point USA]
          [screenshot] [link]

          [end blockquote]

          That’s quite a line up.

        • ColdFusion says:

          I have a feeling if they FA, they’d FO how many actual patriots exist, and how they value the entire constitution. And we would be exceedingly accurate in our shot grouping. I saw many comments about Jan 6th that said as much.

      • -mamake- says:

        …and, stating the obvious, most bank robbers and other criminals do not have the megaphone (magatphone?) that this guy has. Guaranteed amplification via evil scum (like xitter owner).

      • RationalAgent19 says:

        We’ve already prosecuted and locked up 1200 of trump’s most gullible and violent rioters (some of them for decades). Do you think there are a great number of trump cultists still willing to attack and even murder police officers on trump’s command?

        The more thoughtful of them have seen how readily trump throws followers under the bus to benefit or excuse himself. Do they perhaps learn from this about the expected outcome for themselves?

        The Jan 6 attack was cover for swapping in fake electors in a very real attempted coup. Unless trump has a similar plot in place to steal the next election (difficult now he is no longer in the White House) calling out his violent followers will have little effect. We already saw that when nobody showed up after he incited his goons against DA Alvin Bragg at the start of the “inflated values” trial in Manhattan.

        • Matt___B says:

          True enough, as far as the large, concentrated crowds. But still he’ll be able to whip up smaller groups of stochastic terrorists in various locations – state capitals (see Michigan/Whitmer events), maybe there may be an increase in outbreaks of politically-related street violence, at local vote-counting centers after elections. Can’t wait…ugh.

          [Moderator’s note: This comment was hung up in auto-moderation because the username didn’t match your known username. I’ve fixed it this time because I suspect you didn’t intend to use your RL name. Please double check your browser’s auto-fill and cache. /~Rayne]

        • Matt___B says:

          Rayne – I always fill in the username field by hand and use the browser auto-fill for the e-mail field. This time I used it for both…woops.

    • BobBobCon says:

      The difference is that the typical criminal wants exemption from a particular law or two, not a collapse of the entire system.

      A bank robber would love to see a court throw out an aspect of conspiracy law that blows up the case against them, but they still want laws that stop other people from stealing all of the money from banks, or all drug stores emptied out and hospitals shut down.

      And if the bank robber is caught, they very much want a functional court system with a set of rules they can play by, rather than simply getting taken care of by the police.

      Trump wants to blow everything up, probably on the calculation that he has no other options and that he has the ability and strength to come out on top. History suggests that strongmen don’t actually last that long, though, and even if he wins he’s going to find the nihilism spawning a lot of ambitious people looking to take over at his expense. He’s not a deep thinker.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Yes, giorgino, I second that recommendation. If you read nothing else this week, read that piece.

  8. Joseph Andrews says:

    The final sentence of this wonderful piece:

    “It’s all part of the plan.”

    To those of us who remember the Christopher Nolan movie ‘The Dark Knight’, the use of this sentence [and indeed, the entire premise of this piece (Trump/chaos/disruption etc.)] makes me think that Trump is now playing Heath Ledger’s role as Joker, in ‘The Dark Knight’, PERFECTLY.

    Ms. Wheeler, have you seen ‘The Dark Knight’?!

    And (sort of off-topic but not really) take a look at what is now more-or-less normalized:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2024/01/18/chris-collins-profile-trump-pardon/

    Gotham City needs a new hero.

    • Peterr says:

      It is a political calculation. “The Deep State is out to get me, and they won’t even give me a fair trial. Not only can’t I make my argument that EJC is a loon, but I can’t even sit in the courtroom while they railroad me! I am a martyr for sticking up for your rights!”

      It is also complete nonsense — but complete nonsense is what speaks to the MAGA base.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          Indeed, but I wonder where that money can be held in a place that can’t be accessed by his various judgement creditors. It makes no sense to raise money to have to hand it over after another verdict.

          No doubt he’s got a bunch overseas, but how much of that is inaccessible? I’m pretty sure the US can access UK assets, for example.

        • Rayne says:

          LOL Draw the income from Trump org payable to Trump — like that from Trump org businesses which will be under control of a court-appointed manager after the fraud conviction.

      • Bugboy321 says:

        As Karl Rove has alleged to have said, politics is like “watching the news with the sound off”…

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Trump is stoking a resentment that goes back before the Whiskey Rebellion. What his mob followers don’t get is that, if returned to power, he won’t do a thing to relieve their plight. He will inflame it until it consumes them both.

        • SteveBev says:

          What MAGA seems to be doing at the moment is weaponising the border issue. And pushing a confrontation between States and Federal Authorities over the matter.

          The MAGA rhetoric is geared towards taking brutal even violent steps against immigrants and urging the States to take independent actions along such lines in defiance of Federal authorities

          The idea seems to be creating a sense of crisis that only a Strong Man can step in solve.

          This time round it’s not about (or just about) manipulating mobs of supporters, it’s about manipulating State Authorities particularly Texas to manufacture a genuine crisis of governance.

          Last time round, Trump made a ham fisted attempt to create a sense of crisis around BLM/Antifa and attempted to construct a loyal paramilitary force from various agencies.

          Mobilising MAGA mobs to form citizens militias to support the Texas National Guard to defend the border from invasion and from Federal attempts to interfere with Texas’s ‘right’ to to take such control is the sort of fascist fever dream that is not beyond the parade of horribles.

        • EuroTark says:

          The funny/sad part is that Trump himself is something of an immigrant (*), and his current wife was as far as we can tell an illegal immigrant (**). But I guess that doesn’t count since they have the correct skin-tone or something similarly stupid.

          *) His mother immigrated from Scotland and his patneral grand-parents from Bavaria (present-day Germany).
          **) Melania worked as a model in the US before getting her work visa, which is the most common method of illegal immigration.

        • BriceFNC says:

          The conflict in Texas between Abbott and the Feds is simply an effort to put another story on the front page other than the Uvalde fiasco. I will say one thing for law enforcement in Texas…Those 377 law enforcement people in Uvalde sure did a fine job of setting up the yellow crime scene tape and keeping parents and grandparents from doing something on behalf of the students who were slaughtered!

          Did Abbott have another fundraiser last night?

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      This is his pattern. He baits the judge, gets some form of reprimand, and then bleats to his followers about how he’s being treated unfairly by Joe Biden-connected jurists. “Election interference!” blah blah blah.

      • SteveBev says:

        And much is also true of Habba’s court room stunts.

        While she is a terrible lawyer, eg her inability to properly lay the foundation for cross examining a witness on a previous statement, there are other things which speak of calculation rather than incompetence
        eg 1 the motion to recuse the judge – on one level this is incompetent because it should have been part of a motion years ago; but it was deployed in a calculated and contemptuous manner, at a key moment designed to gain maximum attention; deliberately baiting the judge, in a way which had a veneer of respectability amongst the MAGA media
        eg 2 the ‘speaking objections’ and ‘announcements of cross examination topics’ – again these were plays to impress the client and the MAGA audience beyond
        eg 3 the mid cross-examination motion for a mistrial because of ‘deletion of evidence’ – ditto

        Habba doesn’t care about whether she is labelled as incompetent for these tactics – she is deliberately engaging in flagrant underhanded tactics for reasons which serve Trump’s broader strategy.
        She has boasted in front of a MAGA crowd of being sanctioned $1million for fighting to defend Trump, and much of what she has done in Engoron’s court, and now Lewis Kaplan’s is a continuation of the same wilful flouting of rules for the same ends

        • Rwood0808 says:

          Trump likes the “pretty” lawyers for two reasons.

          One, it feeds his ego, and two, they both draw and keep the attention of the target viewers. They are carefully chosen to appeal to a certain demographic. FOX news does the same thing.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Fox News picks the ones who are pretty and smart, the Ivy League lawyers and MBAs who play the average house spouse role on TV. Habba is a wannabe in both departments.

        • emptywheel says:

          In this case, Habba is basically accusing E Jean of liking the rape attention. You need a woman to make bullshit accusations like that.

        • Rayne says:

          That, right there. Habba is dangerous as hell to women, a fascist’s handmaid whose internalized misogynist oppression becomes a weapon against other women.

        • SteveBev says:

          At the English bar there was a strong adherence to what is known as ‘the cab rank rule’ – according to this rule barristers cannot refuse to take a case in an area of law they are qualified to act, and are subject to disciplinary action for deliberately flouting it. The foundation of the rule is sound – no one should be left bereft of skilled defence no matter how odious the accusation. But …

          All barristers are individually self employed, but coalesce in ‘chambers’ to organise their practices. My chambers had a very left wing bent. And a strong feminist stance, indeed we were the first to have a majority women composition of any chambers in the country.
          Using female advocates as a tool to mediate their defences is a stock in trade for offenders of all stripes- rapists,paedophiles, and other abusers of women and children, and the consequences of the rule was that female advocates had a diet of such cases forced upon them.

          As a means of obviating the rule, and the professional disciplinary consequences individually and collectively, we devised a system of swapping cases out. In consequence I ended up defending large numbers of such cases originally assigned to female colleagues.

          FWIW my long experience of dealing with such cases taught me that subtlety and tact in managing the expectations of narcissistic offenders and in examining the complaints against them delivered better outcomes, and brow beating clients where necessary served them better than tormenting their victims on their behalf.

          Habba’s performance was execrable on every level.

          The key skills in cross-examination of any victim of crime, and in particular victims of sexual crime is to keep it to an absolute minimum, being absolutely focussed on only essential points, avoid any fuss or distraction, short questions, thorough preparation and a complete absence of hostility even (perhaps especially where) the point is to question reliability or veracity.

        • -mamake- says:

          I think he counts on some portion of his audience thinking more about “his women” sexually than any of the issues at hand. “Issues” including all the distracting crap exploding from his various orofices.

        • wa_rickf says:

          Not nearly as dangerous as conniving, pathological lying, sociopath Kellyanne CONway. Kelleyanne truly does use her intelligence for evil.

        • Rayne says:

          No. In this case a woman is doing pointed damage to women by aiding a rapist’s sustained secondary attack on a woman. Claiming a rape victim is benefitting from a lawsuit against her rapist while the rapist continues to trash his victim’s reputation validates the rapist’s behavior in the eyes of those who don’t believe women who speak out on their own behalf against abusers.

          Habba is helping Trump discourage rape victims especially women from coming forward. Imagine who else Trump has abused who has yet to file a suit against him ever coming forward after this, even if Trump loses again. In comparison, Conway’s damage is that of any fascist cheerleader and propagandist.

        • Susan D Einbinder says:

          And many if not most of Trump’s ardent supporters LOVE that he’s embarrassing and bullying the woman that he victimized. She’s the opposite of the MAGA-ideal woman … So dysfunctional.

        • wa_rickf says:

          I understand your position of a woman labeling another woman of a sexual assault as “benefitting” from the assault as evil. To me, labeling the aftermath as “benefitting” is just stupid.

          Recently, Alina Habba stated that she would rather be “pretty than smart.” I take her at her word.

          https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/alina-habba-trump-lawyer-court-b2481296.html

          To me, being evil is a premeditated behavior of being vicious, vile, wicked and repugnant – as plotting, planning, connivers are.

          This is why I placed Kellyanne into the evil category because she uses her intelligence for evil. I would submit that in order for Alina to be evil, she would have to process intelligence which she states is not so desirable.

        • Rayne says:

          Habba has a JD as does Conway so neither of the two are too stupid to get through a Bachelor’s and a JD. Neither of them would have been able to work in Trump’s proximity if they’d been unattractive because that’s his MO.

          One of the two has pointedly attacked a rape victim on her rapist-client’s behalf, in order to defend his continued assault on his victim. Pretty damned toxic and scummy.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Trump did not come up with that “She’s hurting the REAL victims” bullshit about E. Jean Carroll on his own. I don’t think Habba was on board yet (or that she’s smart enough to think of it). But it sure has a Laura Ingraham kind of overtone, and there are plenty such male-identified women whose specialty is stabbing their sisters in the back.

          Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s chapter about this phenomenon in Strongmen is brilliant. Life-changing, even. Crystal clear as to why and how this happens.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Rayne, possibly a future post on this? I know we commenters aren’t supposed to assign topics, but you’ve already said so much of such value about misogyny–even just in this thread!–that it hardly requires outside research.

          I fear this will only become more, not less, important going forward.

        • Rayne says:

          I’ve been thinking about it, can’t guarantee I’ll pull something together.

          E. Jean Carroll has said a lot already with few words.

      • Sherrie H says:

        “how he’s being treated unfairly by Joe Biden-connected jurists. “Election interference!””

        Someone should ask him why presidents, who are apparently allowed to do anything, wouldn’t be allowed to do that

    • James Haygood says:

      His MO is that chaos benefits him. Really a pretty simple (and effective) level of thinking on his part.

  9. hebmskebm says:

    It’s all about giving his supporters the impression that he’s “winning”. By delegitimizing the processes by which he’s held accountable, he “wins” simply by being defiant. In his and his supporters minds (he’s trained them to think the same way he does), the only way to lose is to say “I’m sorry” or “I was wrong”. He needs to keep the infallible Superman schtick that works on a depressingly high number of Americans going until Election Day.

  10. Sussex Trafalgar says:

    Trump squandered the billion dollars he inherited from his father. During the time he was squandering his father’s money, he BS’d the locally based gossip NY media into believing he was a business—real estate business—genius. It’s always been a lie—all BS.

    He’s no different than his close friend, Jeffrey Epstein. They both spent the money given to them by one significant benefactor. In Epstein’s case, it was Leslie Wexner. In Trump’s case, it was his father.

    Trump will continue paying the millions he grifts from the Republican Party campaign donors to destroy the Rule of Law in America. And he’ll have plenty of help from wacky authoritarian loving billionaires who covet the freedom of paying to play, a system these billionaires love because they believe and experience that those who make the gold make the rules. Trump is a tool in their game, the same as Epstein was in Wexner’s game.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        And control over the politician(s) you are paying to play.

        The billionaires also pay elected politicians not to compromise on legislation. That’s why nothing gets done in the Republican House of Representatives majority.

        • ColdFusion says:

          Oh, that’s how they vote. They don’t need to show up in the polls, they go “Here’s more money than 10 people make in a lifetime, here’s a law. Pass it.”

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Those billionaires, interviewed this week at Davos, shrugged off the dangers of a second Trump term. Nothing so terrible happened the first time around, right? That was the general argument of these white men whose taxes got cut by Trump. I guess they forgot about Covid because it was a disease of the proletariat, those people they pay minimum wage (without benefits) to generate their record profits.

      They’re counting on another tax cut if Trump gets re-elected, by the way. Not that they want you to know that, but they’re also counting on the fact that you’re not paying attention. And Fox won’t cover it at all.

  11. lastoneawake says:

    Not that it matters much, but this strategy seems more to be being run by someone else (Bannon, probably) because Trump rally speeches seem to be spoken on mental auto-pilot.

    Since it’s clear he’s not writing his posts.

    And the seeking for a super-high judgment is a variation on the old debt adage “if you owe the bank a little, the bank owns you, if you owe the bank alot, you own the bank”.

    Or in this case, you own the media.

  12. Matt Foley says:

    One of several cringe moments:

    Habba: Objection
    Judge Kaplan: Ground?
    Habba: It’s prejudicial.
    Judge Kaplan: All evidence is prejudicial against the party it is offered against.

    OUCH! Such a nasty judge!

    She should write a book, How to Look Hot While Losing a Trial.

    • Marc in Denver says:

      When I saw that yesterday, it reminded me of my Evidence professor (who was a Federal Judge in D.Mass.) saying the same thing. Any law student would know that the correct objection is that it’s unfairly or unduly prejudicial.

    • ExRacerX says:

      Hot is in the eye of the beholder. The courtroom sketches are pretty brutal to Habba, giving her a hard, feral look.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          And if she’s neither, she’s just SOL. She’s already begging for bar sanctions and she’s just getting started. If Trump fails to return to the White House, she’ll be lucky to return to parking garage law.

        • Purple Martin says:

          3rd-tier hard-right cable news network

          (hmmm…I see Sean Spicer is now at NewsNation after Newsmax decided they were too dignified for him).

        • Stereo_70 says:

          What are the odds that Habba gets disbarred for this activity? Her disrespect for the judge seems deserving of such.

          [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username AND EMAIL ADDRESS each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You used a different email address on this comment which caused it to get hung up in auto-moderation; future iterations of the comment system will reject comments with non-matching usernames and email addresses. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • Grain of Sand says:

        They are brutal to Trump, too. But brutal in a different way to EJC as they capture the distress she is experiencing being so near the person who assaulted her and continues to defame her. Is this the normal way of treating victims of assault and defamation post verdict? Imo, the judge should have ejected Trump yesterday, his cult be damned.

  13. Ginevra diBenci says:

    Trump may already be planning ahead in the event of The Big Loss, the 2024 election. This campaign began well over eight years ago with his accusations that Ted Cruz stole the Iowa caucuses from him; Roger Stone formalized it as Stop the Steal later in 2016 and it has never rested.

    The more Trump undermines the credibility of institutions, the better he thinks his chances are–not of *winning* in November, because he still indulges in the exact rhetoric that costs him the suburban voters he will need, but of seizing power through some other, suspend-the-Constitution means.

  14. chetnolian says:

    I drew Marcy’s conclusion from reading the straight reporting in the Guardian. It’s reporting not analysis after all. But the only good thing is I think Judge Kaplan has too.

    Otherwise he would have thrown Trump out on his ear. No other defendant would have got away with how he has behaved. But Kaplan knows his best course is to simply keep pointing up Trump’s behaviour. Which he is doing.

    This is my first comment since bmaz left and I would like to add my regrets. I actually got to meet the real bmaz out in sunny Az and have had several great lunches with him comparing US and UK politics, law and motors. Always stimulating but, for family reasons, too much of a Tifosi for me.

    Sad that they way he said things, rather than what he said, though I often disagreed, got so Marcy had to yell. I guess if we hang around for long enough we all risk turning into Stadtler or Biltmore.

    • Eichhörnchen says:

      bmaz left? I noticed his absence but apparently missed the news that he parted ways with EW. I’m very sorry to hear it. I learned a lot from him.

      • Stacy (Male) says:

        Good riddance. Even when he was right on the substance, his vulgar, insolent, Trumpian tone undermined respect for the law.

        • RationalAgent19 says:

          I agree with your assessment. bmaz’s readiness to throw juvenile insults provoked people unduly.

          His worst failure though was bmaz’s stubborn and childish refusal to explain his constant whining about the supposed impropriety of the GA RICO case. He was frequently called on this, and never provided a clear and concise explanation.

          A very poor choice of moderator, and one whose absence improves this site measurably. Perhaps this is not obvious to readers who have not closely followed his “moderation” (which was actually highly immoderate).

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          People look ugly when you’re alone.

          Jim Morrison’s voice and words have so thoroughly pervaded my mind for so very long that I barely experience anything unthreaded by them. The Doors and the King James Bible both; sometimes I have to work to disentangle them.

          But this was Jim’s. I think it’s truer now than when he wrote it. The more we isolate ourselves, the worse others look to us. That’s also a powerful argument for not isolating or piling on others.

  15. RitaRita says:

    Trump’s tantrums are verging on sovereign citizen behavior. He knows that his temper tantrums in court will appeal to a large segment of his base. Just like he did with claims of rigged elections even before the election, he has been laying the foundation for calling the legal proceedings against him as tainted. He is setting his base up to dismiss any findings against him. And if he can goad the judges into appealable error, all the better.

    He is also cynically manipulating the media. It is best for him if they cover his tantrums but not the substance or merits of the legal charges. As long as he can have the media focus on temper tantrums instead of his sexual assault and persistent and pervasive business fraud, he wins.

  16. bgThenNow says:

    I read that exchange between Trump and Kaplan with some dread.

    I wonder how many of the average citizenry actually have experience in courtrooms to understand the gravity of this situation in terms of decorum vs chaos. Kaplan knows how this will play out. It’s incredible. I hope for the best. He has certainly experienced a lot of difficult defendants. Have any behaved like this? Of course if they did, it was not reported as this is.

    I was also reading on CNN about the Supreme Cult and the cases brought by J6 defendants to overturn convictions or lessen jail time. While we all KNOW the courts have been biased historically against common people, the poor, minorities, etc. the thumbs on the scale seem to me to be more problematic than ever, recent appeals notwithstanding. Should we have ever had faith in the courts? In the back of my mind, I have still been a believer. I am worried. The balance at appeals levels seem still hopeful, but the SCOTUS is another matter.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Trump is fishing for anything he can call “bias,” to add to his inevitable but fruitless appeals. He knows his only chance of winning, in court and in the voting booth, is his mob. I don’t think he’s even started.

      The Carroll defamation damages suit in federal court is likely to be the first one that causes him considerable financial harm, followed by the civil fraud trial in NY state court, which is likely to cost him much more. The magic will be in how quickly the courts enforce collection, because Trump will never voluntarily pay a bent dime.

      • Konny_2024 says:

        That’s why I think this EW post is a rare example where the heading is less accurate than the post itself to which I fully agree otherwise (save for the sentence “And Trump has decided it is worth millions to do that.”).

        [Moderator’s note: Are you changing your username? This one doesn’t match previous username “Konny_2022” under which you’ve made 183 comments to date. /~Rayne]

        • Konny_2022 says:

          Thanks for the note, Rayne. It was only a typo, I apologize. I’ll stick to Konny_2022, indicating the year when I made my first comment on this site.

  17. Rwood0808 says:

    This all comes down to simple math really.

    Trump knows the louder and more obnoxious he is the more the press will cover what he has to say.
    Add up the fines and possible rulings against him and then compare that to what it would cost to actually pay for that amount of publicity and the answer is clear. His plan is cheaper at 10x the price.

    I also am disgusted by the press coverage, but they are in it for the $$$ first and everything else is secondary. Look what he said today! Are you not outraged!?! Tune in tomorrow for what he says next! They are willing accomplices in his psyops campaign.

    And why the focus on if he’ll win the cases or not? He doesn’t even want to win them, he wants the issue. A win erases his ability to pound the table with it. He’s bet it all on winning the oval in 24, and the press, and one judge, are helping him do it….again.

    Verdict before the election. That’s the prize. It’s all that matters. Smith needs to speed this thing up.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      HTF is Smith supposed to “speed this thing up?” The calendar is in the hands of the courts. The DC and 2nd Circuits, for example, are doing their part. Aileen Cannon? Not so much.

      • Rwood0808 says:

        At what point does Smith have enough to contest Cannon?

        One of the things I DID agree with Bmaz on was Smith filing this in Floriduh and not DC. Cannon has made it obvious she intends to delay the case as long as possible. What are the options there? Does he have to wait until she vacates the trial date before crying foul? If the answer is no, why is he waiting? Not enough bias demonstrated??? How much does he frickin need?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Smith needs more than he has now. He is faced with the very conservative 11th Circuit. Even though it shot down Cannon the last time a Trump case came up to it on appeal, Cannon’s “lessons learned” from that defeat was to be more surreptitious, not less pro Trump.

  18. Error Prone says:

    An interesting post. Could you do the next one on Leonard Leo as a threat to rule of law? And make it fittingly stronger. Loudness is one thing. Silent true disdain in action is almost a different topic, one that can be hidden, but Leonard Leo does have a knack for repeatedly mocking rule of law. Successfully. Getting away with it. Not as a clown, but as if he should get a pass because he uses quieter tactics and delivers. Bending vs pounding.

  19. FL Resister says:

    Despite Trump’s strategy to trash US laws, prosecutors and courts, and rile up violence against those who ‘dare’ to hold him accountable, I think the law is persistent and will eventually prevail. In the meantime, a lot of Trump’s folks will continue to face the consequences of doing Trump’s bidding and wind up losing careers, paying fines, and even serving time in prison.

    The question, of course, is when will Donald aka “The Boss” finally be reckoned with and dealt his sentences. I hope he lives long enough to suffer every defeat and punishment, monetary and otherwise, he so richly deserves.

  20. bgThenNow says:

    I think the rule of law is riding on all of this. It seems at the appellate level that there are still bulwarks, but SCOTUS is another matter.

    And yes, Leonard Leo is behind most of this. On both left and right are complaints about bias in the courts. I don’t know what experience the citizenry at large has with courtrooms and judges.

    But the contempt has rarely been tolerated until now with this one defendant. It is frightening. I don’t envy the judges. But I can’t believe it will go over very well with the jury.

  21. WilliamOckham says:

    Thank you for this post. I would like to add that the threat of violence is the only thing that keeps Trump relevant.

    We all saw January 6th, without which he would just be a toxic sore loser.

    Most people missed the fact that the only reason he wasn’t convicted in his second impeachment trial was he intimidated enough Republican senators into fearing for their lives that they let him off.

    He continues to make violent threats against his opponents, the legal system and the press. And in almost every case, he gets away with it. I am not saying that people like Smith and Chutkan are intimidated. I am saying that far more of the “normalization” of Trump and his behavior is driven by fear than we want to admit.

    • CaptainCondorcet says:

      Untill I see several transcripts of threatening phone calls to Senators or read personal texts, I simply cannot buy that narrative. I continue to believe they let him off because of fear of being primaried to death by what had become obvious on the Hill was a primary constituency gone mad. Senators in particular relish making their appointments for life, and McConnell gave them cover to be gutless.

      But as we saw over the next 4 years, those predictions about Republican primary voters were frequently right, which only serves to enforce omerta. As I’ve said before, my biggest impossible to answer question is which spineless GOP member will try their hand at being Khrushchev when Stalin is no more.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Well, until you can explain why Mitt Romney spent all that money on security for himself and his family and several other senators admitted privately that fear of violence was a factor in their decision to acquit, I’m going to consider your attitude part of the problem. I understand that it is psychologically easier to dismiss the issue in favor of believing that politicians are just feckless and MAGA voters are stupid. You get to avoid a whole lot of tough choices that way.

        • CaptainCondorcet says:

          The diabolical part is that politicians ARE feckless and MAGA voters ARE stupid. For the first we have the backing of decades of research, for the second there needs no elaboration. You mention avoiding tough choices, but I worry that legitimizing the claim of “well, I was scared” by politicians who lie as easily as we type is pretty strong avoidance as well. Is it possible that the thoughts were one of a bevvy of factors? I’ll accept that point, as I’m no psychic. But there is too much intentional obscurity by dishonest GOP politicians for me to accept that was THE determining factor.

        • WilliamOckham says:

          I am aware of no research that predicted the outcome of the vote to acquit Trump would be decided by fecklessness. Please enlighten me. That’s not sarcasm, it’s my admission that I don’t know everything.

          Claiming that MAGA voters are stupid is simply your prejudice showing through. I have no doubt that some MAGA voters are stupid, according to whatever definition of stupidity that you would like to use. On the other hand, I know many MAGA voters who are not stupid. I’m not claiming that my acquaintances are typical of MAGA voters. However, claims of the form “X group shares Y trait” without any supporting detail are always indicative of prejudice, in my experience.

          I posited one well-known fact that is consistent with a Senator having a well-founded fear of violence in retribution for his having voted to find Trump guilty. You dismiss that evidence without even responding to it and reply by saying, essentially, you don’t believe me because you don’t believe me. Or, in Bayesian terms, your priors are so strong, you can ignore all the evidence. Good luck with that.

      • Nessnessess says:

        From kayfab to omerta.

        Fear of being primaried by a constituency gone mad was probably the main reason they let him off and played along.

        But outright threats from Trump would not have been necessary. In the environment created by Trump, any politician with something to hide, whether as a matter of legality or just some personal thing they’d prefer not be exposed, is susceptible to the very thought that Trump might find out. Even in asking for their support, or even in idle chit chat, Trump would find it child’s play to insinuate he knew of things and had heard things that it would be such a shame if it ever got out. All without needing to even hint at what it was. That is Trump’s way.

        Under Trumpified politics, anyone with a secret to hide is by default under a blackmail threat over kompromat whose name need never be spoken.

        That is Trump’s way.

        • P’villain says:

          This is where my thinking has landed, though it would not surprise me if Trump has proven to some of them that he actually has kompromat, provided by professionals working to boost him at American expense.

    • Rayne says:

      We all saw January 6th” — nearly everyone on the left anticipated what was to come because there was no counterprotest unlike 2017. The left already knew Trump was drumming up a force with the immense potential for violence.

      In this way the left has also normalized Trump’s behavior by simply avoiding the abuser instead developing an appropriate pro-active response. In spite of composing a majority in this country and a majority of media consumption, the left is unable to demand effective reporting as part of that response — beginning with noting the media’s role in assisting the normalization with their systematic false equivalency both-sidesing Trump’s abuses.

      Yet Trump has not been running a campaign” — I will differ with Marcy on this point. The E. Jean Carroll courtroom response *is* the re-election campaign; Judge Kaplan knows this when he acknowledges Trump wants to be ejected from the court. This is Trump as WWE wrestler in kayfabe but the courtroom is his ring; he’s willing to pay tens of millions because every goddamned newspaper, broadcast and cable news outlet will offer stenographic reporting of his outrage against what his base perceives as the system.

      Trump’s base doesn’t believe in or care about old white ladies like E. Jean Carroll, just as they didn’t believe Hillary Clinton. And unlike the 2016 debate with Clinton where Trump could only loom over her threateningly, Trump is now able to vent his white supremacist patriarchal outrage and appeal to all those who are DARVO internalizers in the right-wing. His base hears their daddy mad as hell and they don’t want daddy to be mad any longer.

      The left makes no observation this denigration of the rule of law AND the rights of women are linked in this courtroom, a counteroffensive against women who are standing up for themselves in Dobbs‘ wake.

      The media continues to clack-clack-clack feed Trump’s outrage from the courtroom to the base without any awareness or filter.

      • Rayne says:

        I should have noted E. Jean Carroll is only 4 years older than Hillary Clinton, both well-educated older blonde women of a certain age.

      • bawiggans says:

        I recently finished watching season 3 of Truth Be Told. Among other things the process and mechanics of grooming young women for trafficking were laid out in the course of the narrative. As I watched I could not avoid seeing the same dynamics at work in the relationship that Trump very deliberately developed and exploits in the grooming of his base. With the pimp’s keen eye, he identified the vulnerable group that would be his future meal ticket. He attracted them with his attention to their troubles and grievances and he convinced them that he really cares about them, feels their pain and shares their values. He shaped the appeal of his campaigns to stroke and entertain them at their level to the apparent exclusion of others. They were made to feel extra special. The bond established, he now alternately panders to them, abuses their loyalty and tells them he loves them – as long as they obey. His hints that violence against his enemies would be understandable and justified are building towards a test of faith that he will demand in the intimate, quasi-religious, coded language that the media will relay and that will give him deniability. The groomed and trafficked willingly submit to his demands, basking in the delusion that their love for and dependency on him is reciprocal. They cannot imagine how they could negotiate life’s hard road without him. This will be a very difficult bond to break.

        • Matt___B says:

          I’ll bastardize from a common spiritual trope that “when the student is ready, the teacher will appear”.

          “When the base is ready [i.e. sufficently groomed/brainwashed], the demagogue will appear”.

          In this right-time/right-place scenario, all Trump had to do was show up and exploit a ripe situation. And so he did. And here we are. The cult-deprogramming industry needs to find a way go industrial strength.

        • Knox Bronson says:

          I listened to a Stormy Daniels’ podcast, Beyond The Norm, yesterday wherein she interviews former Moonie and now author of “Cult of Trump” and mental health counselor Dr. Steven Hassan. Fascinating. He talks about Trump being a Russian asset, Mark Burnett being a member of Christianist cult, how people are programmed or pulled in to cults. Not sure how to safely paste a link here, but it’s easy to find.

        • Matt___B says:

          I’m quite familiar with Hassan, though I haven’t heard this podcast you mention. Mark Burnett a member of a Christianist cult? That’s a new one to me, but not entirely surprising. I’m listening to a podcast right now where Jeff Sharlet (“The Family”) is being interviewed and he’s pointing out something that many people (including Marcy above) also point out, but that is truly under-appreciated by most people:

          People like Trump truly do consider themselves above the law, and so feel free to use public trials for their own propagandistic purposes. Cult leaders, strongmen, autocrats, demagogues of all stripes (and this is something harped upon by historian Tim Snyder a lot) use spectacle as a substitute for ideology. Big events charged with emotion trump (sorry for correct use of that verb btw) reason, law and logic. Battling movements based on spectacle (i.e. one or another form of fascism) requires…something else. And we are on the learning curve to find out what that something else entails.

          And, Sharlet argues, it’s this attraction to spectacle that can explain why you find a smattering of black and latin-american participants at Trump rallies when logically everything going on their is counter to their civic and personal interests otherwise.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Rayne, I agree with almost everything you wrote, especially about Trump’s by now ritualized degrading and humiliation of women his own age (which rituals get added viciousness when the women are Black, like Maxine Waters).

        But I think lots of his fans DO like seeing Daddy get mad–especially when he takes it out on their chosen targets, like women and Democrats and POC. That vicarious rage delights them at his rallies. I think he’s counting on the same principle applying here.

        • Sue 'em Queequeg says:

          They like to see him mad because it gives them permission to be mad. Which permission many no doubt feel they’ve been waiting their whole lives for. At last, they don’t have to be civil, don’t have to be law-abiding, don’t have to be tolerant. They can cut loose. It’s not hard to imagine how euphoric that must feel, especially for those in the grip of lifelong anger and resentment.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Exactly–watch the people in the background at his rallies. Every time he expresses anger or a will to violence (including as “jokes”), they get excited and happy, riled up. You might catch them glancing at each other briefly for secondary permission, because we’re still social animals, but Trump gives the main permission. Especially to the men. The almost exclusively white, no longer young men.

          It must feel like they got lucky again. Almost.

  22. Harry Eagar says:

    Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons” has a line in Thomas More’s mouth about ‘what will you do, when the laws are all down.’

    Sorry, cannot recall it exactly, but the man who taught English constitutional history 60 years ago made it the centerpiece of his course. Plus ca change . . .

    • lastoneawake says:

      William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

      Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

    • SteveBev says:

      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-now-you-give-the-devil-the-benefit

      The dialogue between Roper and More on giving the Devil the benefit of law, Roper asserting he would cut through law to get at the Devil,
      More:
      “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!“

      • John B.*^ says:

        FWIW, this, is in the most simple and direct form bmaz’s argument regarding the law and us liberals desire to put an end to this madness any way we can…I also suspect even though IANAL or an expert this is part of his disdain for rico statutes…

      • Yankee in TX says:

        Of course this is the same Saint Thomas More who tortured and burned heretics and is the patron saint for outfits like Opus Dei!

  23. BobBobCon says:

    This series by Rick Perlstein at The American Prospect does a great job of thinking about what’s broken about the political press.

    https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-17-metaphors-journalists-live-by-part-i/
    https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-18-metaphors-journalists-live-by-part-ii/

    He keeps returning to the rationalizations the Times uses to justify some frames for its reporting, while denying that they use frames at all. And he notes that while there are market forces at play, there are also deep cultural ones, and how the Times happily acknowledges the market but smugly refuses to address their culture.

    And he does a great job going past the claim that it’s all about money, because as we’ve seen from outlet after outlet, the political press is deeply hurting economically, but they simply won’t change their culture. They can’t even recognize it. Money matters, but it’s just not the only thing at play.

    • Kick the Darkness says:

      Thanks for those links. It looks like a interesting series to follow. The hubris of the NYT reporter that has the exchange with Sharlet in the piece is remarkable. With those blinders, I can see how it would be possible to be a reporter, but completely miss the story.

  24. harpie says:

    1/6/21 10:23 AM [at the Fascist Rabble Rousing]
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/02/08/in-his-impeachment-defense-trump-spends-five-times-as-long-not-addressing-the-mike-pence-allegations/#comment-882266

    JUNIOR DON:

    And it should be a message to all the Republicans who have not been willing to actually fight. (cheering) The people who did nothing to stop the steal. This gathering should send a message to them. This isn’t their Republican Party anymore. (cheering) This is Donald Trump’s Republican Party. (cheering) This is the Republican Party that will put America first. […]

    (Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!) That’s right, guys. That’s the message! These guys better fight for Trump. Because if they’re not, guess what? I’m gonna be in your backyard in a couple of months. (cheering) […]

    If you’re gonna be the zero, and not the hero, we’re coming for you and we’re gonna have a good time doing it. (cheering) […]

  25. Magnet48 says:

    Given how much trump needs attention/coverage it’s no wonder that once he realized his “rallies” were not getting the attention he thought they deserved he really started pushing the envelope with his outright antidemocratic/anarchistic spoutings in & out of court. His internal malfunctions perfectly serve the purposes of spreading fascism. It is indeed all part of the plan.

  26. Error Prone says:

    BobBobCon thanks for the links. I admit I have yet to read them, and that I do not know enough and things I believe I know may be wrong, but are we now being shaped by the coverage being what it is? We do criticize. But I just finished reading a CNBC interview at Davos, Jamie Dimon being interviewed.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/17/cnbc-transcript-jpmorgan-chase-chairman-ceo-jamie-dimon-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-from-the-world-economic-forum-in-davos-switzerland-today.html

    He responds to questions and is a banker, not one facing an electorate or thinking of it from the perspective of trials going on currently.

    However he wonders about 2024, 2025, not long term, and has concern about Ukraine.

    Are we, to an extent, being told look here, not there?

    Weaponization of DOJ power is the talking point of the Trumpsters, saying a perversion of the rule of law is being created, while we consider conduct and say, contempt for rule of law.

    And Jamie Dimon is looking at the spending, the deficit as a percent of GDP, using debt to boost economic employment, commercial real estate trending, debt service having to grow as money is injected into the economy. etc.

    And the interview – from Davos – never touches Trump’s litigation.

    Are we missing a forest by looking at too few trees?

    The original post almost completely nailed the issue, and we are talking around it.
    How important is “rule of law,” what is it besides and elastic term, and if the courts handle Trump, will he be able to reverse the message or finally be exposed even to those who support him? It is a very uncertain set of possibilities.

    Are Dimon and the Davos people looking at a broader thing, or are we right to look at culture from our perspective.

    BobBobCon, I will follow those links and see what I can learn from them. I am not saying the cultural things being discussed here are less than Dimon’s thing. Only different. And “rule of law” is clearly necessary, so will others saying “weaponization” being contrary to it gain traction or not? That is where I have no crystal ball.

    The one thing I believe clear is that Trump sets the Repubican Party’s agenda, and its actions and approaches. Elise Stafanik’s gaming three University CEOs being proof. She entered the House concerned about Fort Drum in her upstate district, having an armed services focus, and now she is into demeaning Ivy League education.

    • David F. Snyder says:

      Dimon is a banker, and only a banker. His futurologist skills are exceedingly limited. HIs analysis of the US and world economy is surprisingly vapid at times. His political insights are more influence peddling than any true insight.

        • David F. Snyder says:

          Agreed. And his other skills are nil. Why Congress fawns over him so in committee hearings baffles me — it’s not on the merits; it’s all about the money he can hose wherever he chooses.

      • Wa_rickf says:

        As long as I’ve been aware of Jamie Dimon (circa 2007 housing crisis), his predictions have NEVER come to pass.

        Some readers may enjoy this music video and its accompany lyrics made to bring attention to what Dimon and his fellow travelers did to cause the housing crisis and have never paid the price for what they wrought.

        https://youtu.be/Z8VdR3qBV7g?si=7JsrOM3ZDOJgTdOw

    • BobBobCon says:

      If you want an accessible, entertaining popular history book that is relevant, Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly is worth reading. Most libraries have a copy, or used copies are cheap.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/books/review/barbara-w-tuchman-march-of-folly.html

      She focused on a particular type of failure in history – Folly. Not the situation where leaders lost because they lacked resources or information. But where they lost because they persisted in doubling and tripling down on a losing hand, then doubling down again, despite being fully informed of the odds.

      What’s astounding about the political press today is how many will completely agree about so much of the baseline about Trump and the GOP. And then like clockwork they come to the completely wrong conclusion that they need to cover him the way they might have dealt with the governor of NJ in 1978 when he proposed a slightly slower than optimal repair program for the Garden State Parkway. It’s folly unfolding before our eyes.

  27. Lit_eray says:

    The mental disposition that coincides with disruption of cultural norms has likely been around since societies emerged with cultural cohesion as a defining feature. Has the percentage of these disruptor persons ever been so high within a single geopolitical entity? – I do not know. There are so many “primitive” cultures we elites know so little about that it is impossible to say.

    For no good reason, I believe that electoral systems at some level will reject Trump.

    It does not matter whether Trump wins or loses an election; or whether he is alive or dead; what needs to be considered is how far will the cult go to disrupt what is left of cultural cohesion. There is no way to avoid disruptive attempts. How bad it will be is what matters.

  28. Bill Crowder says:

    The observation that Trump is playing a game totally different from the legal game certainly connects a lot of dots.

    And, it is disturbing that is so little recognized. Maybe the better word is frightening.

        • lastoneawake says:

          Rather than a totally different game, it’s such a typical game that there’s even a legal term used to describe it.

          Also, the judge’s calculated patience with it can be described as “rope a dope”. The famous strategy of the late boxer Mohammad Ali.

    • Epicurus says:

      Donald Trump is playing a game totally different from the legal game.

      Philip Bobbitt has a wonderful tome titled The Shield Of Achilles. In his words it is a book about how the modern state came into being and how evolution of the forms of governance were constitutionally transformed through changing views of a state’s raison d’être, its legitimating purpose.

      He has a wonderful, again, section on the underlying beliefs of Nazi Germany leading to its constitutional raison d’être as an application of the philosophy of Carl Schmitt. I wish I could post the section here but this will have to do.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt.

      Donald Trump and MAGA nation embody Schmitt’s philosophy, that there are friends and enemies and that the sovereign is the source of political authority for the law. The sovereign reserves the decision making power of when to suspend the normal operation of the law. (See the “United States” section in the Wikipedia reference.)

      Seems like deja vu.

      • Konny_2022 says:

        Thank you for the Bobbitt reference (I’ll see that I get the book from my library) and the link. There I found a reference to an article on Carl Schmitt by David Luban (free for download at http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/621), written well before Trump’s entry into politics. This article gave me at least some hints how to answer the depressing question why so many educated persons support Trump, even after 1/6.

        As to the Wikipedia entry on Schmitt, the German version (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt) is more comprehensive. I’d like to include here just a short quote (online translation, but checked; references, only in German, omitted):

        During this time [when Schmitt was held captive by the US], he was interrogated by Deputy Chief Prosecutor [of the Nuremberg trials] Robert M. W. Kempner as a possible defendant regarding his “direct and indirect involvement in the planning of wars of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.” However, no charges were brought because a criminal offence in the legal sense could not be established: “What could I have charged the man with?”, Kempner later justified this step. “He did not commit crimes against humanity, killed no prisoners of war, and did not prepare wars of aggression.”

        So much for intellectual aiding and abetting leaders doing away with the rule of law.

    • Matt in Hastings says:

      I urge all interested observers of Trump’s legal strategy to review the book “Plaintiff in Chief: A portrait of Donald Trump in 3500 Lawsuits” by James D. Zirin, a former assistant US Attorney.

      It is not a thriller. It’s honestly a bit boring. But it comprehensively shows that Trump has used a consistently malicious legal strategy since the earliest days of his career. First quote on the back cover:

      “‘Admit nothing, deny everything: lie, dissemble, and prevaricate. Make false and scurrilous accusations to demonize your adversary’ Donald Trump’s formula for litigation mirrors his presidency – as compellingly told by Jim Zirin. A must-read!”
      – Richard Ben-Veniste, member of the 9/11 Commission and former federal prosecutor

      • Winterspring Summerfall says:

        I did read that book during the pandemic downtime. The title alone explains a lot. There oughta be a law that penalizes high-maintenance chronic abusers of the judicial system.

    • Rayne says:

      You could have employed a bit more effort here instead of dumping a fictional name without any context.

      It’s not like it’s difficult for you as the commenter to supply the full name of the source and a link instead of dumping on readers.

      • Christopher Blanchard says:

        Thought it would be easily recognised and would resonate. The Resistible Rise of Arturo UI is a play by Bertolt Brecht in which a gangster gets power in a fictional Chicago. It is a satire on the rise of Adolf Hitler, set in the USA.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          The world, alas, is no longer fluent in Brecht, if if ever was. My mother starred in Caucasian Chalk Circle in Chicago in the early 1950s, and because she talked about it we grew up knowing Brecht as a household name. I have since learned our experience was anomalous.

  29. AndTheSlithyToves says:

    Bless you, Marcy!
    It’s inconceivable to me that Trump is the brains behind “The Plan.”
    The real question is, which one of the characters in the TCS (Transnational Crime Syndicate) version of “The Sopranos” is he?
    P.S. An interesting recent piece from Russ Baker at “WhoWhatWhy” on the fossil fuel connections–the Marcellus Shale is an ongoing/ cascading environmental disaster:
    https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/donald-trump-drills-deep-into-the-pocket-of-fossil-fuel/

  30. ancien regime says:

    Habba doesn’t seem to know what she’s doing procedurally, but it’s not clear her trial strategy is wrong or stupid, and it may well be working.

    She and Trump have succeeded in baiting Kaplan into making his dislike for Trump known on the record and in front of the jury. Worse, he’s interfering in her cross-examination of Smith, ruling out of bounds various lines of questioning that seem pretty damn relevant to the damages case.

    If your case is a loser, baiting the judge into reversible error is a time-honored strategy. See, e.g., the Chicago 7 and/or any random Rumpole story.

    It’s fun to dunk on her as a ditzy blond who doesn’t know the FRE, but I’m wondering if she’s going to have the last laugh when this thing goes up on appeal.

    I’m also wondering why Kaplan isn’t trying to appeal-proof this. In my experience federal judges know how to slant a case while keeping a very clean record. And Kaplan’s not doing that, particularly on the cross. Puzzling. I would love to hear a perspective on this from someone who’s practiced in his court.

    • timbozone says:

      IANAL but what you are stating is mostly nonsense. Being a lawyer who can represent clients effectively in a state or Federal court means that one should demonstrate some modicum of competency and professionalism…

      Kaplan seems to be handling this about as well as one could short of throwing Trump in jail for contempt during a Presidential election cycle. As for “keeping a clean record”, what exactly would that entail in your mind? Kaplan’s noting all sorts of situations where the defendant’s counsel is not following proper NY state court procedural norms. Are you offended he’s doing it in a humorous or abrupt fashion? What exactly is bothering you here?

      Note that it is not on the judge to have to coddle defense counsel beyond a certain point. Presumably lawyers who wish to practice law before the court are the one’s obligated to actually know/learn the proper way of questioning witness, making motions, proper means of objecting to testimony or evidence, etc. Or are you assuming that state and federal courts are there to bend over backwards for any nonsense that wanders into their courts?

      • ancien regime says:

        Timbozone:

        Thanks for the lecture about what makes lawyers effective in court. You seem strangely certain for someone who’s never actually been there.

        Habba is trying a case that’s already been lost. Under those circumstances, her optimal strategy is not professionalism and competent attention to the rules of evidence. Her optimal strategy is turning the trial into a circus that confuses the jury and baits the judge into overreacting in a way that catches the attention of an appellate court that might already be wondering about the propriety of the original default judgment.

        Whether she’ll win on appeal is questionable, but she’s definitely making progress. Don’t believe me? Here’s what Jose Paglieri had to say about it Thursday in the Daily Beast:

        “Habba is running into serious problems, as U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan keeps interrupting her questions, lecturing her in a condescending tone and forbidding her from approaching just about any subject that would hint at wrongdoing by Carroll.

        Habba has been blocked from exploring whether there are serious repercussions for Carroll deleting evidence of the supposedly numerous death threats she received after initially coming forward about the attack or owning a gun in the heavily regulated New York state without a license. The judge has also limited the extent to which Habba can explore the nature of what she downplays as “mean tweets” that have relentlessly followed Carroll for four years now, as well as Carroll’s decision to never report any alleged threats to her local police.

        * * *

        But in court, Judge Kaplan’s increasingly stringent approach to Trump and his lawyers may risk fueling notions that the judicial system has it out for the billionaire tycoon.

        While Kaplan’s threats to eject Trump from the building on Wednesday appeared proportional to Trump’s repeated outbursts in the courtroom, the way he has incessantly patronized Trump’s lawyer over minor grammatical errors has seemed heavy-handed.”

        https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-lawyers-keep-getting-shut-down-in-rape-defamation-trial

        Paglieri is not exactly pro-Trump.

        If I were the plaintiff’s lawyer here I’d be seriously pissed off about Kaplan’s demeanor. I lost a federal jury trial once because the judge leaned too far in my direction.

        Given your lack of background, I’m not surprised you don’t understand this. But do feel free to lecture me again about what makes a good trial lawyer.

        • SteveBev says:

          “baits the judge into overreacting in a way that catches the attention of an appellate court
          •that might already be wondering about the propriety of the original default judgment.•”

          What of the default judgement, based on collateral estoppel after a jury verdict in a trial in which Habba participated, might give rise to the appeal court wondering about its propriety?

          I assume you used propriety as a synonym for soundness of legal reasoning as opposed to questions of bias or the like.

        • SteveBev says:

          And while you are at it perhaps you might like to consider what if anything Judge Kaplan and or the Appeal Court ought to make of this latest missive to the Court by Habba, when viewed against the transcript of the proceedings, relevant rulings, and principles of relevance materiality and a proper interpretation of a lay persons obligations

          https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24368266-trump-mistrial-request-letter

          Does this filing overcome the hurdle of fatuous nonsense

        • SteveBev says:

          And talking of fatuous nonsense, what do you imagine the appellate court will make of the necessity for a curative jury instruction necessitated by Habba’s introduction of an ill conceived ‘mitigation of damages defence’ in her shoddy opening of the case?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I’m unpersuaded by your characterization. I think Kaplan is doing fine. He’s doing his job when he interrupts her on cross, because Habba is intentionally asking questions about things that have either been decided or are not pertinent to the damages question before this court. She’s not that incompetent, she’s working to a script.

      Nor do I agree that Trump has succeeded in exposing Kaplan’s purported dislike of Trump. Kaplan is exposing Trump’s disrespect for the court and his impermissible conduct. No judge likes or should accept that.

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        I’m torn as to what to think of Kaplan. He seems to have handled the first case well and this one so far.
        On the other hand what he did to Donziger on behalf of big oil infuriates me.
        Maybe I don’t properly understand what happened in that case, but he took away a man’s liberty for years.

        • xyxyxyxy says:

          Let me add, that from what I’ve heard from Donziger is that there was no prosecutor willing to file charges against Donziger so Kaplan allowed Chevron attorneys to prosecute him. Donziger claims that that’s a first in US justice system.

  31. Henry the Horse says:

    Legality is no longer (if it ever was an issue for Trump.

    He has crossed the Rubicon and he knows it. Once you attempt a coup,, or an autogolpe, or an insurrection then that is, in itself, a clear declaration that the law is powerless to stop you. And so far it is. I am skeptical that our system can withstand the assault.

    Trump has committed crimes for which there is no reasonable defense. What to do? Destroy, or negate the law by force or by becoming the 46th President of the United States.

    Ultimately though, this ends in a constitutional crisis either way. Either Trump wins and we have dictator, or he loses and roughly 1/3 of the country rejects outright their allegiance to the rule of law.

    • timbozone says:

      So far we’re not in a “Constitutional crisis” over these four cases against a former US President. Trump’s “totally immune, I President!” nonsense has been shot down ever time it’s gotten to the Supreme Court where they can’t weasel out of ruling.

  32. CaboDano says:

    Well, shit howdy, that other thread that was shut down got pretty off the rails. ” I yelled at bmaz” -EW
    Hey, shit happens and then we move on. I’ve been following BMaz since the old Prodigy days of the late 90’s and always enjoyed his commentary and no prisoners persona. I can see why he and Marcy made such a good team and are so revered here, birds of a feather and all that. But goddamnit, smoke ’em peacepipe and get over this unhappy horseshit. You’re both beautiful! Hasta pronto!

  33. Henry the Horse says:

    I played ice hockey, baseball and other sports all my life, which is taking forever at just under 65 years.

    I think in the 90’s take no prisoners was pretty cool, but this is 2024, and it gives off a very similar vibe to MAGA these days. In fact, I think that is exactly their whole ethos.

    As examples, Steve Bannon is a take no prisoners kind of guy…so was Rush Limbaugh and I could go on and on ad infinitum.

    I am right, and F#$k you because I said so is just rude and invariably my inner hockey player is activated, and I say F#*k you let’s drop the gloves.

    I think civilty on ALL counts regardless of your legal opinion is a must because when it ceases to exist then everyone loses.

    Lastly, while inducing rage for the reader may be great for the dopamine cowboys over at the alt right sites, it pollutes the serious journalism on this site.

    To be fair though, the legal analysis was great so I can see how Bmaz amassed his followers. Does he turn off more than he brings in?? The board here looks about 50/50.

  34. Henry the Horse says:

    One last thing. I have never personally been flamed by Bmaz, so I don’t have an axe to grind. I have only read the comments where others met rough seas.

  35. bloopie2 says:

    The prosperity gospel is a religious belief among some Christians that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them. Material and especially financial success is seen as a sign of divine favor. (to quote Wikipedia)

    Is this Trump’s gospel? How is he different from a preacher of the prosperity gospel?

    • RipNoLonger says:

      If it’s a con, trumps your man.

      “Prosperity gospel” – where everyone can become a millionaire (billionaire?) if they only follow my path.
      Learn how to sell (Art of the Steal)
      Get a good degree from T University.
      Drink really cheap/expensive vodka and eat rancid meat from T products, inc.
      Sleep in comfort (and with lots of surveillance) at one my T properties. Oh, and bring money (cash preferred.)

      Get close to god if you’ve paid enough. And the devil will be there to welcome you.

  36. Yohei1972 says:

    Re. “the Iowa caucus, with its anemic turnout signaling Trump’s expected victory may shrink the GOP so badly it will lose races up and down the ballot” –
    I would like to believe this, but they also had a brutal, record-breaking cold snap. Do we have any compelling evidence about how much these two different factors contributed to the low turnout?

    • gertibird says:

      In 2016 Trump won over 90% in the Iowa caucuses. That he now got only 51% shows his popularity has shrunk.

      • Yohei1972 says:

        Where are you getting that number from? Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses in ‘16. Trump got about 23%. Maybe you’re thinking of 2020, when he was the practically unopposed incumbent.

        https://www.statesman. com/story/news/politics/politifact/2024/01/19/trump-lost-iowa-caucus-to-ted-cruz-in-2016-didnt-win-three-times/72256408007/

        • gertibird says:

          Yes, It was 2020. Unopposed or not he still got far less votes this time. If people really wanted Trump they would have come out this year as well given that he did have competition, but they didn’t.

  37. Vinniegambone says:

    All the clucking about BMAZ is utter pathetic garbage shit. It is all shit and to think you can just parachute in here and lay down this blather is insulting. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass Moron. How’s that? Make everyone who misses him feel better?
    My view is “something ails our colt.”
    One never knows what another is carrying around or how heavy it might be for them or their family.

    I see Mr. Maz as sort of a bouncer.
    Someone has to muck out the stalls.
    At least the dude cares.

    As to the fascists trends, I see no other remedy to cure this pathology. The best I can do, and will do, to maybe help check it is to join the efforts to knock and drag out would be Biden voters in my city.

    Ms Wheeler’s post about the visible and invisible networks is to me scary as hell, but it makes me wonder where do these assholes find the time? There’s is an echo chamber, but it is not music to people’s ears the way they think it is.

    When we speak of Trump’s allies we should never leave Russia out of that discussion. It’s Stone, Bannon, Jones and their $$$ cohort’s driving this bus. Their shoot to kill vitriol eventually will fail to resonate. The more they encourage and participate in violence, the more it will work against them.

    Meanwhile the cruel strategy of sending asylum seekers to Democratic strongholds to saddle municipal governments and budget with the problem is evil genius in that it angers ordinary citizens and is turning some portion of them against Democrats, which is the intended goal. The border crises is seen totally as a product of Democrat policies. Our border issues do need to be resolved. No idea what the answer is, but Trump is going to try ride that wave to victory. I fully expect concentration camps if, may all the Gods forgive, he wins.

    The good news is once he drops dead there will be no one will fill his shoes because they will all eat each other’s faces trying to do so.

    [Moderator’s note: 359 words — work on your concision, Vinnie. /~Rayne]

    • Vinniegambone says:

      Rayne, sorry. Point taken.
      ” Sorry I wrote such a long letter.
      I didn’t have time to write a short one.”
      Abraham Lincoln

    • Ron DiPronio says:

      Well I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of grumpy old people spouting off and wasting my time; said the grumpy old man.

  38. HardyWeinberg3 says:

    He must be paying Alina Habba right? There must be a strategy that there are some people he pays to keep around and the rest he counts on celebrity just drawing them in for a bit before they get replaced by other suckers.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Habba claimed that she’d already been paid $3.5 million from Trump-controlled sources. She’ll be happy to say WTF Trump wants her to say, however he wants it said.

  39. Kristen_D62 says:

    I read here regularly and have learned so much from the deep-diving posts, but also from the comments and commenters, and it’s a breath of fresh air that the moderation here won’t suffer trolls, whining and bullshit kindly; the tough-love approach works well to weed it out. Just wanted to be sure to thank you all again and make sure bmaz knows he’s sorely missed.

Comments are closed.