Here’s a 44pg PDF of the “Master Calendar of Trump Court Dates: Criminal and Civil Cases” for those interested in such things.
This has been posted elsewhere but it seems to fit.
I did a spin-off from this thread, for further discussion of the -financial- consequences of these settlements along with the other possible/probably judgements against Trump in the hopefully not-too-distant future for those who want to speculate:
Below is an excellent X/Twitter thread regarding Trump’s chances at appeal. Basically, he’s completely screwed because his lawyer is incompetent and an appeal because of incompetent council is only for criminal cases.
Unless I’m doing it wrong, this just links to some guy’s Twitter page with nothing about the Trump v. Carroll case.
Try this for a summary:
Thanks! There’s also a link to the Twitter/X thread in the story:
And wow, it’s a pretty damning indictment of Ms. Habba’s lawyering skills (or lack thereof).
Yes. Particularly since the only path forward for Trump is delay, delay, delay.
And Habba destroyed his ability to appeal the verdict due to her incompetence. So any potential appeal is going to be dismissed very quickly. No delay for you today Trump!
Out of curiosity, what would a competent defense have looked like at this latest trial? That is, once it’s decided that he committed the act, how would a competent lawyer have minimized the judgment against him, or preserved the appeal?
Assume the same client, so there’s no settlement on the table, and he’s gonna whine and bluster and act the fool. What would a good attorney have done, other than refuse the job?
The very first Tweet is about the case
The first Tweet that is visible for me is from June 30, 2023 about a lawsuit the guy filed against a student loan servicer. If I scroll down, I don’t see anything more recent than that.
Note that I don’t have a Twitter/X account (and don’t intend to sign up for one, either), so maybe that has something to do with it.
So it may be that you have to link to the specific Tweet in question if you want everyone to be able to see it.
Besides explaining why Trump has no chance of appeal on procedural grounds, and that an “ineffective counsel” appeal doesn’t apply to civil cases, the same lawyer also explains why the argument that the award was excessive isn’t likely to fly, either (I bolded the best part):
The purpose of punitive damages is to deter and discourage the same conduct in the future. They are designed to protect the rest of society from the same type of conduct by the wrongdoer by teaching the wrongdoer that there will be real consequences.
This is where “excessive award” does not simply mean “big number.” Punitive damages are calculated by looking at the wrongdoer’s net worth and deciding how much money is necessary to teach them a lesson.
A $10k punitive damages award might be more than enough to chasten your average citizen. That’s a decent chunk of change. But it isn’t enough to deter, for example, a large corporation like Exxon or Boeing. Because of that, the jury is called upon to make a factual determination as to what amount is necessary to teach THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT a lesson.
This is why E. Jean’s lawyers did such a masterful job of using Trump’s own boasts about his wealth against him. They created a factual record within the transcript that Trump has huge wealth, according to his own statements, and that to deter him, a commensurate punitive award was necessary.
The chances on appeal are not good, but I don’t see that speeding up the process much. They still get to file appeal briefs (and ask for extensions). The plaintiff has to file their brief, and then they get a reply. Oral argument might be dispensed with if the Court of Appeals sees no significant issues, but I would guess even if they’re going to uphold the verdict they will give the former president the full process, including oral argument.
E. Jean Carroll says she might use the money to help other women Trump has hurt. I hope she does, and that he fumes every time her name is mentioned.
Well, with that underlying assumption, there’s essentially nothing the lawyer could have done to help him. As you say, it’s already been legally determined that he committed the sexual assault that underlies this whole conflict, and that, as a result of that, he defamed her. Those questions were never really at issue here (which underlies the whining about “Not being allowed to defend himself”; Trump thought he should get another kick at the can for the whole thing).
So the lawyer’s job here would be to try to limit the size of the judgement as much as possible. You could argue that the defamation didn’t really harm her all that much, or you could have the client show actual remorse for their “intemperate remarks”, in hopes of appealing to sympathy, and receiving only a nominal fine.
But as you say, Trump is incapable of showing remorse, or restraint of any kind, and actually went out of his way to further inflame the situation. At that point, the lawyer is basically useless, even one that’s not incompetent.
So–genuinely asking–are you saying that Habba doesn’t really deserve any blame here? Like, she may have been bad at her job, but it didn’t make any difference, because a good lawyer couldn’t have gotten a better result in her place?
Funny. I seem to have known Eva Braun’s name all my life, but I never knew the name of Mussolini’s mistress.
Indeed. A normal lawyer with a normal client would have settled this ages ago for a 6 figure sum and an apology.
Well, she doesn’t deserve any blame from Trump, for sure. He screwed this up all by himself, and the size of the judgement is all on him.
Now, the rest of us can blame her for other things she actually did. She didn’t just fail to control Trump, after all. She took an active role in prolonging this trial, and trying to make the plaintiff and the courts look like the bad guys in all this. We can blame her for all of that, no problem.
It’s pure conjecture, but some of those punitive damages have got to be the result of Habba and Trump being the actual worst.