Internet backs Donald Trump as professional ties between E Jean Carroll's lawyer and judge revealed

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: Donald Trump's legal team is reportedly gearing up to expose a previously undisclosed "conflict of interest" as a pivotal element in their appeal to overturn the colossal $83.3 million jury verdict in the defamation case brought by E Jean Carroll against the former president.

Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, expressed shock after learning that Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, shared a professional history working together at the same law firm in the early 1990s.

Discovery of Professional Ties

Speaking to New York Post columnist Charles Gasparino, Habba disclosed that she had no inkling of this connection until January 27, noting that neither the judge nor Roberta Kaplan had revealed this association—a situation she deemed "insane" and "incestuous," potentially violating judicial ethics rules.

"It was never disclosed. It's insane and so incestuous," said Habba, asserting that Lewis Kaplan, 79, and Roberta Kaplan, 57, who are not related, failed to disclose this "conflict of interest."

Roberta Kaplan's legal journey took her from Paul, Weiss Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison, where she worked from 1992 to 2016, to becoming a founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink.

The revelation of her past association with Judge Kaplan during her early years at Paul Weiss added a new twist to the unfolding legal drama.

"This is news to us," Habba stated. "We are going to include this in our appeal and take appropriate measures. The fact it wasn't disclosed is an ethics violation."

Zak Sawyer, a representative for Roberta Kaplan, countered the conflict claims, stating, "They overlapped for less than two years in the early 1990s at a large law firm when he was a senior partner and she was a junior associate and she never worked for him."

Despite Sawyer's dismissal of any conflict, a former Paul Weiss partner, choosing to remain anonymous, claimed that Judge Kaplan had been a mentor to Roberta Kaplan during their time at the firm. “Lew was like her mentor,” the former partner claimed.

Social Media Reactions

That said, the disclosure prompted a flurry of reactions on social media.

"That nullifies the case right there. Clear conflict of interest," one posted on X.

"She's gonna get rocked with appeals. She won't see NOTHING close to 83 million," another user predicted.

"This should be a slam dunk to vacate the verdict. A clear conflict of interest. Was the purpose to tarnish Trump and the Republicans long enough to lose the election, then a toss on appeal?" read a comment.

"All indictments are a house of cards played to take him out of the election by the timing and delays surrounding the successful appeal," theorized another.

"I hope all of them rot in hell for what they’re doing to our country! The level of corruption is obnoxious," another fumed.

Donald Trump's Legal Battles Continue

Trump, previously ordered to pay Carroll $5 million, now faces the substantial $83.3 million judgment for slandering Carroll in 2019. Legal experts have questioned the size of the award, citing uncertainties regarding the monetary damage caused by Trump's actions, per the Post.

As the decision came in, Trump, en route to a campaign event in Nevada, continued to paint the legal cases against him as politically motivated. He vowed to appeal the verdict, labeling the case a "Biden Directed Witch Hunt."

"I fully disagree with both verdicts and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party," he posted on Truth Social Friday, January 26.

"Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!"

The former president followed it up with another post, writing, "There is no longer Justice in America. Our Judicial System is Broken and Unfair!"

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.