Arrogance and prejudice are nothing new at CNN, but when host Jake Tapper interrupted attorney Alina Habba's press conference following an exorbitant $83 million verdict against former President Donald Trump in the case E. Jean Carroll, as thin as a mosquito's wing, fired these hateful shots until eleven o'clock.
Instead of allowing viewers to hear Habba's impassioned condemnation of Judge Lewis Kaplan and an armed justice system, Tapper brushed aside Habba's comments mid-sentence, apparently believing that his views and those of his colleague liberal, Laura Coates, were far more important than the actual news that was in her time slot.
(Video: CNN)
Habba was understandably outraged by the outcome of the libel trial, one that was light on evidence but swimming in outrageous sound bytes.
“There was no proof, and I couldn't prove that she didn't wear the dress,” Habba fumed from the courthouse steps. “There was no DNA. There was no expert. My experts were denied. Two of them, two of them they were denied entry.”
Habba said the mock trial is an example of why he stands with Trump.
“And that's why so many Americans are so proud that he's running again and so excited to be running at the polls,” he said. “But don't get it twisted. We are seeing a violation of our justice system. Ladies and gentlemen, they are not allowed to strip away all the defenses they have. You are not allowed . . .”
And that was about all Tapper could take.
He singled out the lawyer with contempt for insulting his skills.
“Okay, now you have an idea why Donald Trump's lawyer is perceived to be as effective as she is, which is not particularly effective,” he told his viewers. “Laura Coates, if you could dig up some of this, Alina Habba was saying that Donald Trump was not allowed to introduce defenses. What is he talking about?”
It's “nonsense,” Coates assured viewers that God forbid they hear the arguments and make up their own minds.
“He's talking nonsense and trying to rewrite history,” Coates said. “And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if she herself is now vulnerable to accusations that she made defamatory statements of some kind without evidence to the contrary.”
It's a wonder the camera crew didn't pass out from the noxious gaslight fumes.
“Let me tell you, he had a chance, Jake,” Coates continued. “This was the damages phase of a trial I could have attended last year. His presence was voluntary in the sense that he was actually required to attend the trial, but his defense was not voluntary. He had every opportunity, essentially, to present evidence, to defend himself, to testify himself, to do all the things that he talked about in that step of the court right now. They made a different decision than that.”
“Now, you had the penalty phase of a trial, and the judge expressly told them, here are the parameters,” he explained. “Let's not litigate this issue again. A jury has already decided the issue in which you could have fully participated. And because of that, you are limited in trying to take a second bite at the apple. Even at the Big Apple. This one goes be the judge's clear directive”.
“And so to suggest that somehow it's New York or the jury system, or somehow something nefarious that was happening to the defense in the way they decided to defend the case is really ridiculous,” he proclaimed. .
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you're sick of letting radical tech execs, bogus fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals, and the lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news, consider donating to BPR to help us fight back them. Now is the time. The truth has never been more critical!
Success! Thanks for donating. Please share BPR content to help fight lies.
We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.
English 
Español de Venezuela 