Donald Trump is not an easily intimidated man — something that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has become all too aware of.
Kaplan is the judge presiding over the second lawsuit brought against the former president by writer/professional loose screw E. Jean Carroll.
You may recall that a jury in New York City partially sided with her in a defamation case regarding allegations made by Carroll that Trump sexually assaulted her in the dressing room of a busy Manhattan department store sometime during the 1990s.
She was somewhat unsure about exactly when it took place or how it went undetected in a busy retail establishment, but never mind; a New York jury would convict Trump of murdering Julius Caesar and being the second shooter on the grassy knoll, so the real surprise is that they found only partially in her favor last spring.
Trump continued to profess his innocence in the case, so she’s suing him again for comments he made about his innocence in the first lawsuit. It’s kind of like the movie “Inception,” only for torts.
Anyhow, this is how The New York Times reported the courtroom proceedings in what was supposed to be a “straight news” story:
“As the writer E. Jean Carroll told a jury in a Manhattan courtroom Wednesday how Mr. Trump had wrecked her reputation and made her a target of his most fervent followers, the former president sat at the defense table and bridled,” the piece read.
“His comments” — he audibly called the trial a “con job” and “witch hunt” from the defendant’s table — “the kind of protestations familiar from his rallies and speeches, were unusual only because they came amid a civil jury trial over a suit that Ms. Carroll had brought against Mr. Trump,” the piece continued. “She was testifying about what happened when Mr. Trump called her a liar after she accused him in 2019 of a decades-old rape.
“Suddenly, Mr. Trump’s grousing escalated into an extraordinary exchange after a lawyer for Ms. Carroll, out of the jury’s presence, cited Mr. Trump’s comments about Ms. Carroll’s testimony and complained that jurors might be able to hear him.
Do you think Trump can win the 2024 election?
“The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, who had sparred all morning with one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alina Habba, over her objections to Ms. Carroll’s testimony, appeared to be losing his patience. ‘Mr. Trump has the right to be present here,’ the judge began, adding that Mr. Trump could forfeit that right if he is disruptive and if he disregards court orders.”
“I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial,” Judge Kaplan told Trump. “I understand you’re probably very eager for me to do that.”
Trump’s response: “I would love it. I would love it.”
The judge in the E. Jean Carroll case threatened to exclude Trump from the remainder of the trial, which President Trump replied: “I would love that”. pic.twitter.com/cA06LQCWbG
— Real Mac Report (@RealMacReport) January 17, 2024
Kaplan, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, tried to pretend he hadn’t just been owned.
“I know you would, because you just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently. You just can’t,” he said, according to NBC News.
Trump’s response? “Neither can you,” he said, throwing his hands in the air.
As one social media user noted, “While the judge tries to intimidate, Trump turns the tables with his boldness.”
While the judge tries to intimidate, Trump turns the tables with his boldness. Shows he’s not scared of a legal system that’s often biased against him. He thrives under pressure. That’s leadership.
— Frank (@FrankChronicles) January 17, 2024
Another way to put it: If you invite the world to a farce, don’t expect the subject of the trial not to treat it like a joke.
Now, this isn’t to imply that sexual misconduct is an unserious matter — but the Carroll case might still be the most absurd use of lawfare from the left against the former president and current GOP front-runner that we’ve seen.
Carroll’s vague, unverified (and unverifiable) accusation of sexual assault against Trump — which just so happened to mirror the plot of an episode of “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” — first appeared in her 2019 book, “What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal.” (I’ll save you the trouble: Jonathan Swift did it better.)
Granted, the accusation was at least 20 years old — again, Carroll is a little foggy on when it happened — but it was taken seriously by the media, because of course it was.
The author and former sex advice columnist for Elle was then talked into suing Trump for defamation by #Resistance icon-hack George Conway, according to CNN.
All we need to do is get Kathy Griffin and Mitt Romney involved in this trial, somehow, and it’d pretty much be the NeverTrump version of the “Seinfeld” finale.
After she won the partial verdict last spring, Carroll amended a prior 2019 defamation complaint to drag Trump into court again.
And this isn’t even counting the other trials Trump is facing, which just so happen to all be taking place concurrently during an election year in which he’s the polling front-runner and de facto leader of the political opposition.
Quelle surprise! What a coincidence! And just a coincidence. Nothing to see here, you conspiracy theorists.
But, no — we’re supposed to take this all very seriously. I return to the Times’ coverage of the trial:
“Mr. Trump’s behavior in court Wednesday may foretell clashes between a man who has assailed American institutions and a court system defined by decorum and restraint. Mr. Trump has tried to make his legal problems — which include four criminal indictments — a selling point for voters, and in recent days alternated between appearances in courtrooms and in politically important states.”
American institutions, as well as the decorum and restraint that are supposed to characterize the judicial branch of those institutions, rely upon the earned trust of the people. That trust was already being eroded in 2016 when Donald Trump was elected; now, that erosion is a full-on Pacific Palisades mudslide.
Of course Trump is using these trials as “a selling point for voters” — because he can, all thanks to American institutional debasement.
If the system still commanded decorum and respect, no sober-minded candidate would tell a judge “I would love it” in response to a threat to be ejected from the courtroom.
Instead, in the upside-down world of 2024, it’s the only thing for a sane politician to do.
