Robbie Kaplan’s Genius Question Destroys Alina Habba’s Argument in Trump Defamation Trial

New York City, NY – E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer effectively countered an argument made by Alina Habba, former President Donald Trump’s counsel, during the ongoing civil defamation trial. The trial, which took place over two days, aims to determine additional claims and damages owed to Carroll, a former Elle columnist, who already won a $5 million defamation lawsuit against Trump.

Habba questioned Carroll about the online harassment and threats she received, arguing that they were not necessarily linked to Trump’s disparaging remarks. However, Carroll disagreed, stating that some of the harassment she experienced was directly tied to the former president, as his supporters sought to emulate him.

Carroll’s attorney, Robbie Kaplan, further challenged Habba’s argument by asking if any of the harassment Carroll received occurred before Trump called her a liar or suggested she should be raped. This line of questioning effectively undermined Habba’s claims that Carroll’s damages were unrelated to Trump’s actions.

While Habba has faced criticism during the trial for perceived blunders, including tense exchanges with the judge and being told to “sit down” multiple times, renowned conservative lawyer George Conway dismissed both Habba and Trump as “dumb.” In contrast, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance expressed concern over the representation of a former president by a lawyer who appeared inexperienced in the courtroom.

Carroll initially sued Trump in 2019, alleging that he defamed her while denying her accusations of sexual assault. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and claimed presidential immunity. In this current trial, Carroll is seeking at least $10 million in damages.

The trial’s outcome will have implications not just for Carroll and Trump, but also for the broader conversation surrounding defamation, sexual assault allegations, and the influence of powerful figures on their supporters’ behavior. The court proceedings have provided a platform for both sides to present their arguments while raising questions about the qualifications and effectiveness of the legal representation involved. As the trial continues, all eyes will be on the proceedings as they unfold in New York City.