The MeidasTouch Podcast - DELUSIONAL Trump Begs Judge to Declare He WON Case he BRUTALLY Lost

Episode Date: March 6, 2024

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump’s filings in the E Jean Carroll defamation case requesting that the federal judge overturn the jury verdict of $83.3 million or, in the alternative, grant a new trial or reduce the damages amount. If you head to https://REELPAPER.com/meidas and sign up for a subscription using code MEIDAS at checkout, you’ll automatically get 30% off your first order and FREE SHIPPING! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's better than a well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue? A well-marbled ribeye sizzling on the barbecue that was carefully selected by an Instacart shopper and delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered. Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Grocer $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games

with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly

to jump in on the fun and make same day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. I'll tell you something. Somebody said to me, Alina, would you rather be smart or pretty? And I said, oh, easy. Pretty. I can fake being smart.

I always like to show that clip of Alina Haba before she files something entirely frivolous, which means I show that clip a lot. Now in the E. Jean Carroll case, Alina Haba has filed two separate motions. One, she's asking the federal judge, Lewis Kaplan, as a matter of law under federal rule 50B to throw away the jury's $83.3 million verdict that was entered against Donald Trump. And she says that just reverse it, the jury got it wrong. Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan declared that Donald Trump was actually the winner of the trial that he lost. And then a few minutes later, Alina Haba then filed a separate motion under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting that the federal judge grant a new trial or remit or lessen the damages because Alina Haba says that the jury awarded E. Jean Carroll way too much money for the defamation by Donald Trump

against his sexual assault victim and that the judge should reduce the damages significantly or grant a new trial. I kid you not. I want to go through the motions that Alina Haba just filed, but first let me play for you this clip after Donald Trump was hit with that $83.3 million verdict, after Alina Haba demonstrated that she was such a bad lawyer that she could not even introduce evidence. She didn't know how to establish a foundation, how to show a witness a document, establish that the witness has seen the document, move to admit, move to publish before the jury. She apparently didn't know how to do that.

And then she started whining in typical MAGA fashion after the trial concluded and Trump lost. The unanimous federal jury found that Donald Trump defamed a sexual assault victim. Play this clip of Alina Habba whining. Play it. It twisted. We are seeing a violation of our justice system. Ladies and gentlemen, victim. Play this clip of Alina Habba whining. Play it. tells the lawyer before your client, the former president of the United States,

the leading candidate and obvious nominee for the Republican Party, before he takes the stand to defend himself, Ms. Habba, tell me the questions you're going to ask in open court and tell me exactly what he's going to respond. And then edited my questions, edited the response he was allowed to give. And guess what my client did? He took the stand. He abided by the rules of this corrupt system that I have seen. We will immediately appeal. We will set aside that ridiculous jury.

And I just want to remind you all of one thing. I will continue with President Trump to fight for everybody's First Amendment right to speak. Everybody's a right to defend themselves when they are wrongfully accused and to be able to say, I didn't do it and to double and triple and quadruple down and say, this is wrong. This is wrong. But we are in the state of New York. We are in a New York jury. And that is why we are seeing these witch hunts, these hoaxes, as he calls them. And this is another one of them. Be brought in New York, in states where they know they will get juries like this. All right, let's take a look at what Alina Haba is arguing and why she's arguing that

the federal judge should just throw away the jury verdict and declare Donald Trump the winner. I mean, how delusional can you be? Just so you know, here's what it says. It says defendant, they always refer to him as president. I don't. They wanted to say former president. They could at least go there, but I'm just going to call him Donald Trump.

Defended Donald Trump respectfully requests that this court grant him judgment as a matter of law in this case under rule 50B of the federal rules of civil procedure. For the reason stated herein, judgment as a matter of law is warranted because E. Jean Carroll failed to prove sufficient evidence to prove her case as to causation of any damages in this case. Could you believe that that's what they're arguing? Judge, we're so delusional that even though a jury over the course of many days of trial ruled that Donald Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll, we want you, Judge, to say that Donald Trump

is actually the winner. Then they do a factual background where they misstate a lot of the facts about what happened. And here is why Alina Haba is saying that the judge should decide, even despite a jury verdict, that Donald Trump's the winner of the case. Alina Haba goes, plaintiff must prove her injuries were not caused by third parties. Causation requires there to be some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged. With respect to damages, a plaintiff must prove

causation between the defendant's tortious conduct, the defendant's defamation, and the harm allegedly suffered by the plaintiff. A plaintiff cannot recover if the evidence establishes one or more possible causes of injury for which the defendant is responsible. And then they just cite a bunch of cases. And then they say plaintiff failed to establish that Trump's statements were the proximate cause of her injuries. And then they go on to say that E. Jean Carroll's damages theory was centered around the negative public attention that she started receiving on June 21st, 2019, the day she first published her allegation against Donald

Trump, which he subsequently denied. Plaintiff, however, failed to establish the causal nexus between Trump's June 21 and 22 statements and the harm she claims to have suffered. What in the world are you talking about? I know Alina Haba in your opening and your closing. This is what Alina Haba argued. She argued, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, E. Jean Carroll should be thankful for what Donald Trump did to her because Donald Trump made her famous. He didn't hurt her. She wanted fame and she should be grateful for what he did. To which E. Jean Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan and co-counsel said, is that the most disgusting thing you ever heard?

Donald Trump has already been found liable for raping E. Jean Carroll. And now you're saying that she, his victim should be thankful for the fact that he continues to defame her, including in this very courtroom before your eyes, that she should be grateful for him to that. And that's essentially in variation of what Alina Haba and Donald Trump are arguing here to the judge. Judge Kaplan, you saw this trial. You should say that E. Jean Carroll actually got a benefit from Donald Trump here. She wasn't harmed. We never showed that Donald

Trump harmed her. Donald Trump accused her of some of the most despicable things, and he was doing it in the courtroom as well. Frankly, it's one of the most despicable acts I could ever even fathom that just exists out there. Someone who sexually assaults someone and then continues to defame them each and every day and then says, what are your damages? That doesn't hurt you. I'm just going to defame you each and every day. And now it's time for a brief lesson on the history of toilet paper. The first perforated toilet paper rolls were introduced in 1890. It wasn't until 1930 that we officially had splinter-free tissue.

Prior to that, people just used what was on hand, corn cobs, parchment, and even pages from the farmer's almanac. Nowadays, we're clear-cutting our forests just to make something that we use once and flush down the toilet. That's why I love real paper. Let's have a real conversation. Real makes a sustainable toilet paper that contains no trees and instead uses 100% bamboo. Real's paper is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, meaning that they are responsibly harvesting the bamboo grass that's used for their paper. And while the other conventional tree-based papers are wrapped in plastic in the grocery aisle, Real Paper's packaging is plastic-free, compostable, and offers free shipping on all orders. But here's the best

part. When I use Real, it doesn't feel like I'm sacrificing something to help the earth. In fact, it feels like an upgrade. It truly has become my go-to teepee. Real Paper is available in easy, hassle-free subscriptions or for one-time purchases on their website. All orders are conveniently delivered to your door with free shipping and 100% recyclable, plastic-free packaging. If you head to realpaper.com slash Midas, that's R-E-E-L-P-A-P-E-R.com slash Midas, and sign up for a subscription using our code Midas, M-E-I-D-A-S, at checkout,

you'll automatically get 30% off your first order and free shipping. That's R-E-E-L-P-A-P-E-R.com slash Midas or enter promo code Midas to get 30% off your first order plus free shipping. So let's stop flushing our forests and try real papers, real tree free paper. Real is paper for the planet. Then it goes on to talk about how when she reviewed the negative messages, E. Jean Carroll did not focus on when a message was received in relation to Donald Trump's statements, and they keep on referring to him as the president. Plaintiff's trial explanation for the negative messages during the five-hour gap is unavailing. While on the stand, plaintiff attempted to tie the backlash to an

unrelated statement that was not issued by Trump and was never entered into evidence at a trial. Specifically, plaintiff testified that this news article contained a denial from the White House, which she inaccurately described as Trump's initial response to the article. By repeatedly referencing the White House denial and stating without evidence that Trump was responsible for issuing the statement, plaintiff misled the jury. So you're saying that Judge Lewis Kaplan allowed, a federal Judge Lewis Kaplan allowed E. Jean Carroll to mislead the jury because actually, is what they're saying, the White House was the one who defamed E.G. Kemp, not Donald Trump. It was the White House that did it. That's what was the real

issue here. I mean, how pathetic can you get? And then you get this other filing by Alina Haba under Rule 59 to remit the damages, lessen the damages, or to issue or to hold an entirely new trial. Here's the motion that was filed. Pursuant to Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Donald Trump requests a new trial and or requests that the court alter or amend the judgment for the reasons discussed herein. It gives the legal standard for a motion for new trial. Here are the main arguments. The court erroneously excluded relevant

evidence of common law malice and erroneously instructed the jury on common law malice. That's an argument that they're making. The exclusion of Trump's testimony about his state of mind. So they're whining that because Donald Trump was not allowed to testify into areas where he was already found liable based on the first trial, that that is a reason why the court should grant a new trial. And they're attacking federal judge Lewis Kaplan here and saying, we're attacking you, but give us a new trial, please. And remit the damages, lessen the damages. And then they talk about how they believe that the monetary amounts are too high. The $7.3 million compensatory award should be remitted. First, as discussed in Trump's motion to stay the execution of posting

a bond and enforcement of the judgment pending resolution of the post-trial motions, the $7.3 million compensatory award should be remitted. The award of compensatory damages for emotional harm surpasses the permissible bounds for such damages, and exceeds comparable awards in this district, warranting a significant reduction. Here, the $7.3 million award is solely for emotional distress, and Alina Habas says that's too high. You can't possibly award the victim who was assaulted by Donald Trump and then defamed over and over again. That much money is basically the argument. And again, it goes to what she argued during her opening and closing remarks, that this was actually a benefit for E. Jean

Carroll. And they say that the $11 million for reputational repair must be remitted. And then they say the $65 million punitive damages must be remitted. And then they say the $65 million punitive damages must be remitted. And folks, they are terrified right now. Let's be very clear. Trump, his lawyers are absolutely terrified. They have to post this bond for $83.3 million. Donald Trump, who's been boasting about how wealthy he is

and how rich he is, and Alina Habasek, he has all the money in the world. He seems to be struggling to post a bond, both in this case as well as in the New York Attorney General's civil fraud case, where he'd have to post a bond of about $464 million with over $100,000 compounding interest each and every day. Another desperate move here by Alina Ha, but we'll keep you updated with more here on the Midas Touch Network.

Thanks for watching. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 3 million subscribers together. Love this video? Make sure you stay up to date on the latest breaking news and all things Midas by signing up to the Midas Touch newsletter at MidasTouch.com slash newsletter.