WASHINGTON — Donald Trump was threatened with eviction from a courtroom last week by a judge angry about the former president’s conduct in a defamation lawsuit brought by a writer accusing him of sexual abuse.
His lawyer didn’t fare much better.
Lawyer Alina Habba was ordered to “sit down” after she continued unsuccessfully to raise a point that the judge had rejected, prompting the lawyer to respond: “I don’t like being addressed that way , Your Honor.” She was later reprimanded for sitting instead of standing while addressing the court, and the next day she was reprimanded for how to properly question a witness. “Exhibit 101,” said Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.
The sharp confrontations were expected as Trump’s lawyers portray the bombastic and often antagonistic courtroom style that defines his campaign behavior. In arguments that appear to be focused more on the client than the court, Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly invoked his status as a front-runner in the presidential race, despite its dubious relevance, and his claims of prosecutorial bias and political persecution repeated, and advanced theories of legal immunity advanced. for skeptical judges.
There is no doubt that, with few exceptions, the lawyers have struggled to score big points with the judges and, in fact, have often provoked their ire. But now that Trump is in court on a semi-regular basis, the meetings could also serve a political purpose, with the candidate appearing to invite tongue-lashing from judges to bolster his claims of bias in the justice system.
“Trump is really just there as a provocateur,” said Ty Cobb, who led Trump’s White House legal response to the Russia investigation into election interference. “He wants to be admonished and he wants his lawyers to be admonished as much as possible to give the impression that he is fraudulently selling to his supporters that the judges are unfair to him and that he is a victim.”
Trump faces four criminal cases in different cities and multiple lawsuits. Most of the courtroom action so far has focused in New York, where both sides await a judge’s ruling in a lawsuit in which the attorney general accuses him and his company of fraud, and where an ongoing lawsuit focuses on claims of defamation by writer E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump owes her for comments he made while president while vehemently denying ever assaulting her or knowing her.
Both cases have been defined by contentious exchanges between judges and Trump and his lawyers.
In November, for example, they unsuccessfully pushed for a mistrial in the fraud case, accusing Judge Arthur Engoron of “palpable and overwhelming” bias. This month, Engoron withdrew permission for Trump to make his own closing arguments at the trial after his lawyers resisted a directive that the statement not devolve into political rhetoric.
When Trump attorney Christophe Kise protested the restrictions, Engoron responded via email: “I will not debate this again. Take it or leave it.”
Trump decided to speak anyway, calling the case a “fraud against me,” while Engoron begged Kise to “control your client.”
Similar tense encounters occurred in the defamation case. During the clashes in the early days of the trial, Kaplan, an experienced judge, scolded Habba, a lawyer with limited trial experience in federal court, for talking over him (“don’t ever interrupt me again”) and continuing to argue with him after he ” had already ruled (“In my courtroom, when the verdict is delivered, it is the end and not the beginning of the argument.”)
The volatility extended to Trump himself, with Kaplan telling him he would be removed from the courtroom if he continued to be disruptive during testimony. “I understand,” Kaplan said, “that you probably really want me to do that.” Trump replied: “I would love it.”
In the federal case in Washington accusing Trump of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden, language from his legal team often mirrored Trump’s comments during the campaign.
His lawyers have accused prosecutors of using the case as a “platform to advance the Biden campaign’s dishonest political talking points.” They have argued without evidence that Biden pressured the Justice Department to pursue the indictment and unsuccessfully pushed for U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s recuse, claiming former President Barack Obama’s appointee was biased.
Chutkan has repeatedly warned Trump’s lawyers against political arguments. She once told attorney John Lauro during a debate over whether restrictions could be placed on Trump’s speech that while she knew he had a “message” to say, she didn’t want campaign rhetoric in court.
At another point, Chutkan interrupted Lauro as he again called the prosecutor politically motivated, telling him, “You clearly have a different audience than I have in mind.”
Trump has gone through multiple attorneys during the current round of cases, although some attorneys, including Habba, Todd Blanche and Chris Kise, are involved in multiple cases.
A key lawyer during the classified documents investigation, Tim Parlatore, left the team weeks before Trump was indicted, citing conflicts with a close Trump adviser. Two other members of the team announced their resignations the day after the indictment in June. Trump lost a high-profile Atlanta lawyer before surrendering in August on charges of undermining the presidential election in Georgia. And one of his New York lawyers, Joe Tacopina, also recently withdrew.
During an interview on MSNBC, Tacopina cited personal reasons for his departure — “I had to follow my compass,” he said — but did not elaborate. However, he alluded to some of the challenges that come with defending a client like Trump.
“Donald Trump is doing what Donald Trump has to do to get his message to the attention of his supporters. It’s part of the playbook,” Tacopina said. “As a lawyer you naturally want him to deal with the facts and the law, but that is not always an option.”
One venue where the Trump team has gained traction is in federal court in Florida, where he is accused of illegally keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The judge in that case, Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, has been receptive to lawyers’ claims that the trial may have to be postponed beyond its scheduled May 20 start date.
But even there, Trump’s lawyers have refuted serious allegations of violations of the Espionage Act by parroting Trump’s Justice Department arguments and the intelligence community’s bias, claiming last week that the case was brought “in order to a goal that President Biden cannot achieve during the campaign. : slowing down President Trump’s leadership campaign in the 2024 presidential election.”
Stephen Saltzburg, a criminal justice professor at George Washington University, said the caustic tone and tenor of the Trump cases could have a long-term negative impact on the legal system if parties in other cases see value in seeking a judge’s decision. to defy or thwart.
“I think there are other litigants who will say, ‘If it’s OK for the former president to speak this way, then it’s OK for me to speak this way,’” he said.
___
Richer reported from Boston and Sisak from New York. Associated Press writer Larry Neumeister in New York contributed to this report.
