Trump Sticks It To Judge With Epic 4-Word Response After Threatening Him

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Donald Trump confronted the prospect of being ousted from a civil trial on Wednesday. The trial is taking place in his old haunt, Manhattan.  The incident occurred as a result of his persistent failure to comply with directions to stay quiet while writer E. Jean Carroll was testifying. Carroll testified that her reputation suffered significant harm as a result of her allegations of sexual abuse regarding him.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan cautioned the ex-president that his attendance at the trial would be rescinded if he persisted in causing disturbances. After receiving an initial warning, Carroll’s counsel stated that Trump persistently made remarks to her legal representatives, including phrases such as “it is a witch hunt” and “it really is a con job.”

“Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial,” Kaplan said in an exchange after the jury was excused for lunch, adding: “I understand you’re probably eager for me to do that,” the Associated Press reported.

“I would love it,” Trump shot back, shrugging as he sat between lawyers Alina Habba and Michael Madaio at the defense table.

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

“You can’t either,” Trump muttered.

Kaplan cracked down after Carroll lawyer Shawn Crowley complained for a second time that Trump could be heard “loudly saying things that are false” as he sat at the defense table, frequently tilting back in his chair and leaning over to speak with his lawyer.

Throughout Carroll’s testimony, Trump persistently expressed his exasperation by shaking his head and engaging in conversation with his attorney. When Kaplan disregarded an objection raised by Trump’s lawyer, Kaplan directed the attorney to sit down. Trump reacted vehemently by striking the table and commenting to his lawyer, “nasty guy,” perhaps implying the judge, as reported by NBC.

At the morning break, Crowley reported to the court regarding Trump’s boisterous comments, which including categorizing certain things as “false” and ridiculing Carroll’s recollection. Prior to the jurors’ resumption, Judge Kaplan requested “I’m just going to ask Mr. Trump to take special care to keep his voice down so the jury does not overhear it.”

Nevertheless, Trump persevered. After the lunch break, Crowley informed the judge that Trump continued to make remarks that could potentially be heard by the jurors, such as “this really is a con job” and also “it’s a witch hunt.”

Trump had resumed his position at the defense table by the conclusion of the lunch break.

Michael Madaio, an attorney for Trump, voiced his discontent with the judge for promptly issuing a warning to Trump “without giving us a moment to respond” to the allegations presented by Carroll’s legal team regarding Trump’s disruptive conduct. Madaio alleged that the judge exhibited a “general hostility towards the defense” and demanded that he step down as the judge for the hearings.

The judge’s reply was concise and straightforward to the demand to recuse himself: “Rejected,” he said.

The litigation between Trump and Carroll pertains to a civil matter, wherein Carroll, a former journalist for a magazine, has levied allegations of sexual assault against Trump during the mid-1990s. Trump has refuted the accusations. The lawsuit has encompassed diverse legal actions, including as defamation suits and inquiries into whether Trump was conducting himself within the purview of his presidential duties when he made declarations refuting the charges.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit delivered a brutal smackdown to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, establishing a precedent that may have future consequences for executive privilege and the division of powers.

The court’s verdict, submitted on Tuesday, concerns the search of data housed at locations under the control of X, formerly Twitter, which challenged Smith’s request.

The matter, which has attracted widespread national interest, is around the Special Counsel’s endeavor to circumvent conventional executive privilege safeguards in its examination of Donald Trump’s Twitter posts when he was president.

Although Smith was eventually favored by the court on appeal, the official brief included a scathing criticism of Smith’s methods.

The court document explicitly asserted that “judicial disregard of executive privilege undermines the Presidency, not just the former President being investigated in this case.”

The court condemned the Special Counsel’s methodology, which involved executing a search warrant and issuing a nondisclosure order not taking into account the privileged nature of presidential records. The court highlighted that “This unprecedented approach is mistaken for at least three reasons,” underscoring the deviation from past norms and the crucial constitutional safeguard of executive privilege.

An essential issue of disagreement in the lawsuit revolved around President Trump’s utilization of Twitter. The Special Counsel refuted Twitter’s assertion of presidential privilege, contending that there is “no plausible reason to conclude that the former President … would have used Twitter’s direct-message function to carry out confidential communications.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend