He has not said anything publicly about E. Jean since the second verdict. See, the toddler can learn.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
He has not said anything publicly about E. Jean since the second verdict. See, the toddler can learn.
Attorney Roberta Kaplan said former President Donald Trump threw papers across a table and stormed off during a deposition at Mar-a-Lago after learning that his legal team had agreed to provide her lunch.
Kaplan, who has represented clients in high-profile cases against Trump, including E. Jean Carroll, said on an episode of the “George Conway Explains it All (to Sarah Longwell)” podcast recorded Thursday that she rejected the former president’s request that they work through a lunch break because he believed the deposition was “a waste of my time.”
“And then you could kind of see the wheel spinning in his brain. You could really almost see it,” Kaplan told Republican strategist Sarah Longwell and conservative attorney George Conway, a longtime Trump critic. “And he said, ‘Well, you’re here in Mar-a-Lago. What do you think you’re going to do for lunch? Where are you going to get lunch?’”
Kaplan said she told him that his attorneys had “graciously offered to provide” her team with lunch — a common civil practice between opposing legal teams.
“At which point there was a huge pile of documents, exhibits, sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table. And stormed out of the room,” Kaplan shared, adding that Trump specifically yelled at his lawyer Alina Habba for providing them lunch.
“He really yelled at Alina for that. He was so mad at Alina,” she said.
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 6:59 pm NY Post called the $83.3 mil verdict "eye popping". " It is "mouth shutting" as well since tfg hasn't said nary a word.
Ah thanks. That does sound vaguely familiar. There are so many cases and I don't know how to use Excel to create a chart. LOL
So much tea (as the kids say) in that article:
Kaplan continued: “He came back in and he said, ‘Well, how’d you like the lunch?’ And I said, ‘Well, sir, I had a banana. You know, I can never really eat when I’m taking testimony.’ And he said, ‘Well, I told you,’ — it was kind of charming. He said, ‘I told you, I told them to make you really bad sandwiches, but they can’t help themselves here. We have the best sandwiches.’”
* * *
In a separate anecdote, Kaplan detailed the end of the deposition when she was set to leave, saying that Trump told her: “See you next Tuesday” – a phrase that is often used as a derogatory euphemism directed at women.
“We come in the room and I say, ‘I’m done asking questions’ and immediately I hear from the other side, ‘Off the record. Off the record. Off the record.’ So they must have planned it. And he looks at me from across the table and he says, ‘See you next Tuesday,’” she recounted.
Kaplan said that she was initially confused, as their next meeting was set for a Wednesday. “You could tell it was like, it was like a kind of a joke again, like teenage boys would come up with. But again, I wasn’t in on the joke,” she said.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-pac ... wn-lawyersUsing private investigators—or, more broadly, the research work they do—is standard fare on a political campaign. Candidates want to dig up dirt on their enemies, and they want to know their own vulnerabilities. But Trump wasn’t looking into himself or his political enemies. In fact, Trump wasn’t doing anything explicitly political.
He was looking into the actions of his own lawyers.
According to a source familiar with the situation, the private investigators were commissioned to look into missteps by Trump’s legal team in the early stages of his rape defamation case against E. Jean Carroll.
Specifically, this source said, the private eye looked into who Trump’s lawyers had interviewed—and who they hadn’t.
But he never commits a crime because he can do what he wants. He's Trump.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 5:04 am Perhaps a lightly modified apothegm is required for Trump: if you can't pay the dime, don't do the crime.
Wouldn't it have occurred to the defendant to ask them? Of course that implies he doesn't trust anyone. Something we already knew.Flatpoint High wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:52 pmhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-pac ... wn-lawyersSpecifically, this source said, the private eye looked into who Trump’s lawyers had interviewed—and who they hadn’t.
It is a bad idea because, generally, to win a malpractice case, you have to prove you had a winnable case in the first place.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 5:04 amSo Trump might be considering suing his attorneys for the 90 million or so that the Carroll cases cost him?
That does not sounds an attractive gig for any other law firm, does it? Especially not a competent firm careful of its reputation.
And that's without the issue of Trump not paying bills generally.
Not necessarily. Judgment and sanctions are separate; the judge could enter the judgment and then sanction. But the more efficient action would be to issue a sanctions order alongside the judgment.
Call and raise: Too also, the plaintiff also won't move for sanctions (I WAG).