The MeidasTouch Podcast - Federal Judge SCHOOLS Trump on FRIVOLOUS Motion

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the latest order by Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan denying the latest frivolous motion by Donald Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba. 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

Why do fintechs like Float choose Visa? As a more trusted, more secure payments network, Visa provides scale, expertise, and innovative payment solutions. Learn more at visa.ca slash fintech. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. This is the end of BetMGM 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. Oh, Alina Haba, watching the train wreck lawyering by you is, it's truly a sight to behold.

Judge Lewis Kaplan, the federal judge presiding over the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial, which Alina Haba, you lost, representing Donald Trump, where a jury awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million. Judge Kaplan just rejected Alina Haba's motion for a mistrial and sanctions pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 37E for spoliation of evidence. It's a funny ruling because Judge Kaplan's basically just calling Alina Haba an idiot over and over and over again. Just take a look at this. The attempt to revisit the mistrial motion talks about how, as noted above, defendants counsel, Trump's counsel, moved orally during the trial for a mistrial on the basis of Ms. Carroll's trial testimony. The court immediately denied it, partly because it was untimely in light of defendants' awareness

of the essential facts at issue for nearly a year before trial, but more importantly, because the motion made no sense. Indeed, granting a mistrial would have been entirely pointless. Then the judge proceeds to explain to Alina Haba what a mistrial means and what a mistrial motion is. The judge explains, a mistrial in the relevant context is a trial that the judge brings to an end without a determination on the merits because of a procedural error or a serious misconduct occurring during the proceedings. Had a mistrial been declared here, it would not have remedied any improper disposal of electronic communications, which Alina Haba is alleging that E. Jean Carroll committed, if any there was.

It would not have ended the case. It simply would have required the dismissal of the jury, then the selection of a new jury, and the recommencement of the trial. The issue of whether the defendant would be entitled to any relief for improper disposal of electronic communications would have carried forward unresolved into the second trial. Declaring a mistrial would have served no useful purpose. But the judge then goes on to say, undaunted, defendant's counsel, Trump's counsel, in her written motion again sought a mistrial. In substance, she sought the reconsideration of the court's denial of her oral motion in the middle of a

trial, but the application was at least doubly frivolous. Doubly frivolous. A party seeking reconsideration of a prior order must identify an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Local civil rule 6.3 requires the moving party set forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court overlooked, yet Mr. Trump has not done so. Rather, he relies on the same testimony that the court had considered at trial. He cites no new or controlling cases on the law of mistrial, let alone any that the court has overlooked. He has demonstrated no clear error. Accordingly, the court declines to reconsider its mid-trial denial of defendant's motion for mistrial.

Had it granted reconsideration, however, it would have denied the motion on the merits because it was entirely baseless and would serve no useful purpose. The written motion before the court is no more timely, and granting it would be no more sensible than the oral motion during the trial. Indeed, granting it now would be even less sensible. That is how a jurist who is good with words just slashes through the idiocracy that is Donald Trump and his legal counsel. And just to refresh your recollection, we'll pull up the full mistrial motion here in motion for Rule 37E sanctions. Donald Trump's lawyer, Alina Haba,

alleged during the middle of the E. Jean Carroll trial that E. Jean Carroll deleted text messages and deleted messages from social media posts, direct messages, email messages, where she was threatened by people. One of the components of E. Jean Carroll's damage is that as a result of Donald Trump's statements, she received lots of death threats and other types of threats. And she says that she deleted some of these threats when she would receive them because you know she's not going to go and save people threatening her life and you know she saved some but some she would see and they'd be so jarring and she would delete it she wouldn't go ah

aha litigation let me save these death threats you know she would be horrified and you know and she would hit delete and she would remove the emails. 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. Reel'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,

Reel 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 in 100% recyclable plastic-free packaging. If you head to realpaper.com slash Midas, that's R-E-E-L-P-A-P-E-R dot 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. So Alina Haba alleged that that constituted spoliation of evidence, that it constituted a willful deletion of relevant evidence that the jury should have been aware of. And guess what the judge said? The judge says, a trial doesn't just come out of nowhere.

There were pretrial proceedings that took place where E. Jean Carroll had testified to exactly what she testified to or very close to it at trial, what she said in the deposition a while back. So Alina Haba, when you knew about that then, why didn't you do anything about it? If you thought that was a big deal that she deleted these messages, all that stuff, spoliation under federal rule of civil procedure 37E, trying to seek a judicial remedy, whether it's an adverse inference, whether it's some other instruction to the jury, you address that through motion practice before the case goes to trial. And you didn't do that.

So you didn't bring the motion in a timely manner and that's number one. Number two, you didn't provide any credible evidence in your motion for mistrial regarding the specific documents that you saw. You know, you have to show the court the evidence, the subpoena at issue, what you specifically requested, what you feel was not complied with. And then, you know, it could have been addressed. And the court said in any way, the right result followed regardless, because the bottom line is that the jury was able to hear the arguments from you, Alina Haba, where you claim this was a big deal, that E. Jean Carroll deleted some of the death threats that she received because she was traumatized by it and didn deleted some of the death threats that she received because

she was traumatized by it and didn't want to save death threats. They heard your argument. It wasn't like the jury was excluded from learning about that fact. So they heard about it. The ends of justice were served. E. Jean Carroll and her lawyers were able to explain it. It was in the record. So if you did a mistrial, do you know what a mistrial is, Alina Haba? Because all that means we would just start this process over again. What you seem to have wanted was a Rule 37E motion for spoliation sanctions, but this is not spoliation. It's not a willful deletion to try to intentionally cause harm to this case and to obstruct. It's not what went down. Even if it did go down, you had to follow steps before the trial.

There are rules. There are local rules. There are rules and the federal rules. And you got to read them, Alina. You don't just get to make stuff up and say mistrial because you saw it on a legal show. Judge Kaplan goes and just explains, look, this was a defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll. Verdict was reached on January 26, 2024 for $83.3 million. During the trial, Trump moved for a mistrial on the ground that Carroll in her trial testimony purportedly admitted that she deleted multiple email messages purporting to death threats made to her. The motion ignored, among other things, the facts that A, Ms. Carroll had acknowledged a year earlier having deleted

such materials. B, Trump did not even suggest that he sought to recover the deleted material by discovery or otherwise in the intervening period. The court denied that motion. Later during the trial, Trump filed a purported letter motion seeking a mistrial, essentially on the same grounds. The court goes through the procedural history of this E. Jean Carroll case and the other case where Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. In the first case, a jury awarded $5 million. This case, it was $83.3 million. It goes through the deposition in 2023 by E. Jean Carroll from January, from her deposition. Here's a summary of the sworn testimony, puts everything in context. The deposition was

January 31st of 2023. They talk about the death threats. E. Jean Carroll admits that there was some deletion, but why she deleted it. Trump's lawyers didn't do anything about it. They just sat on it and filed any motions to compel, nothing like that. And so then the court goes through, you don't know what a mistrial is, Alina Hamba, let me explain it to you. And let me explain to you what Rule 37E is about and what spoliation is about. And it has to be this kind of intentional willful deletion in anticipation of litigation. That's not what E. Jean Carroll did. And you don't know what you're talking about, Alina Haba. Denied. Denied. And another loss for Trump, another loss for Alina Haba. And the judge just basically saying, you know, you just don't know what you're talking. You do not know basics of law.

She doesn't. I'm Ben Myselis. This is the Midas Touch Network. Let's hit subscribe. Let's get to 3 million subscribers. Also subscribe to our newsletter, MidasTouch.com slash newsletter. Thanks for watching and have a great day.

Hey, Midas Mighty, love this report? Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram, at Midas Touch, to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now.