Alina Habba criticizes judge and attorney general in Trump’s New York case.
Alina Habba, the attorney representing former President Donald Trump in his New York civil case, strongly criticized Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, accusing him of being “unhinged.” Habba claimed that during Trump’s testimony on Monday, Justice Engoron slammed a table in court. She also asserted that Engoron had already formed a biased opinion that her client committed fraud before the trial even began. Habba cited Engoron’s remarks earlier in the day when he expressed dissatisfaction with Trump’s responses on the witness stand.
In addition to her critique of Justice Engoron, Alina Habba took a swipe at New York Attorney General Letitia James, who initiated the case against Trump and his two eldest sons. Habba quoted Engoron as saying, “‘I’m not here to hear what he has to say,'” and questioned why she was being paid as an attorney and why taxpayer dollars were being used in the courtroom if the judge had already made up his mind.
Habba argued that James’s motives were driven by a desire to gain publicity and reputation for herself by calling Trump a liar and labeling his company as fraudulent. She continued to criticize James, referencing her gubernatorial campaign and suggesting that the numbers don’t lie, hinting at James’s electoral performance.
Alina Habba also spoke out against what she perceived as “corruption in courtrooms,” where attorneys are silenced and prevented from advocating for their clients due to restrictive gag orders. She highlighted her concerns about confidentiality in communications between Justice Engoron and his staff.
Habba revealed that Trump’s lawyer, Christopher Kise, had raised concerns about note passing between Engoron and his law clerk Allison Greenfield. Notably, allegations of excessive political donations by Greenfield had been exposed by Breitbart News, which became a focal point of discussion in the courtroom. Habba mentioned that Engoron had yelled at her and slammed a table, emphasizing that everyone, regardless of their identity, had the right to put up a defense and hire a lawyer who could raise objections and speak out against injustices.
Habba concluded by asserting that James and the state of New York had nothing more than their political motivations behind the case, and she criticized the credibility of Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who served as the state’s star witness. Habba insisted that Trump’s true net worth was significantly higher than what James comprehended and that she was ill-prepared to handle the case. Habba concluded by warning that James had chosen the wrong adversary in her political pursuits, predicting that her political agenda would ultimately fail.
